Keller v. State

Full title: Billy Edwin KELLER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Jul 16, 2003

Nos. 04-03-00184-CR 04-03-00185-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 16, 2003)

Opinion

Nos. 04-03-00184- CR 04-03-00185-CR

Delivered and Filed: July 16, 2003 DO NOT PUBLISH

Appeal From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court Nos. 2002-CR-4210 2002-CR-4211, Honorable Henry G. Schuble, III, Judge Presiding APPEAL DISMISSED

Sitting: Alma L. LOPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant, Billy Edwin Keller, entered a plea of nolo contendere to two separate counts of theft under $1,500 enhanced to a state jail felony. The trial court imposed sentence in both cases on February 18, 2003, with sentence in each case to run concurrently. The trial court signed certificates of defendant's right of appeal in each case stating that this "is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal." Appellant filed a general notice of appeal in each case on March 5, 2003. The clerk's record in each case, which includes the trial court's Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(d). The clerk's record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Keller; therefore, the trial court's certification accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2). On May 14, 2003, we gave Keller notice that the appeal in each case would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification showing he has the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record by June 13, 2003. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21011277 (Tex.App.-San Antonio May 7, 2003, order). An amended certification showing Keller has the right to appeal has not been filed. We therefore dismiss the appeal in each case. Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(d). On June 26, 2003, Keller filed a pro se motion for appointment of counsel on appeal in each case. Because we dismiss the appeals, we deny Keller's motions as moot.