Opinion
12-22-00245-CR
05-10-2023
SHRONDA EDMONDS JONES, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct. No. 114-0013-20)
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GREG NEELEY, JUSTICE
Shronda Edmonds Jones appeals following her conviction for third-degree-felony driving while intoxicated. In two issues, Appellant challenges the trial court's imposition of certain court costs against her. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated. The indictment further alleged that Appellant had two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded "guilty" to the charged offense and "true" to the jurisdictional, enhancement allegations. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten years but suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for seven years. This appeal followed.
Prior convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI) are essential elements of felony DWI and must be proven at the guilt-innocence stage to support a felony conviction. See State v. Wheeler, 790 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1990, no pet.). The prior convictions define the offense and are jurisdictional allegations. Id. Thus, since the prior DWI offenses are elements of a felony DWI offense, when a defendant pleads "guilty" to felony DWI, her plea encompasses all the elements of the offense alleged in the indictment. White v. State, No. 06-19-00025-CR, 2019 WL 2518468, at *2 (Tex. App.-Texarkana June 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). A separate plea of "true" to the prior DWI offenses is unnecessary. See id.
Jurisdiction to Consider Assessment of Court Costs
In her first and second issues, Appellant challenges the trial court's assessment of two categories of court costs-those comprising the local consolidated fee on conviction of a felony and the EMS trauma fee. However, Appellant pleaded "guilty" pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, and the trial court's certification recognized that she had no right to appeal apart from issues raised by motion and ruled on before trial; the trial court did not give Appellant permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2018). In order to confer jurisdiction on this court to address her issues related to the assessment of costs, Appellant was required to obtain the trial court's permission to appeal. See Foote v. State, No. 02-16-00252-CR, 2017 WL 3081216, at *4 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 20, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction issue related to propriety of assessment of court costs, which resulted from "guilty" plea in a plea-bargain case, where trial court's certification stated defendant had no right to appeal other than as to rulings on pre-trial motions made before trial, and where no permission to appeal was given by trial court); Boyett v. State, 485 S.W.3d 581, 597 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2016, pet. ref'd) ("The appellate record and the trial court's certification . . . are clear that, in this plea bargain case, Boyett reserved only the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on pretrial matters. Thus, we must dismiss [Boyett's legal-insufficiency issue] for want of jurisdiction."); Conklin v. State, No. 01-08-00838-CR, 2010 WL 1568578, at *1-2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 8, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("[A] defendant must raise even a jurisdictional issue in a pre-trial motion or receive permission from the trial court that accepted the plea bargain in order to bring the issue on appeal"). Without such permission, we do not have jurisdiction over the issues raised in this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Foote, 2017 WL 3081216, at *4. Appellant's first and second issues are dismissed.
Disposition
Having determined that Appellant pleaded "guilty" pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, and because the trial court did not grant her permission to appeal, we are without jurisdiction to address her first and second issues, in which she challenges the trial court's assessment of court costs. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.