No. 13-08-00724-CR
Delivered and filed March 11, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.
Before Justices RODRIGUEZ, GARZA, and BENAVIDES.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice RODRIGUEZ.
Appellant Patrick Knesek challenges his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for engaging in organized criminal activity. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 71.02(a)(8) (Vernon Supp. 2009). By one issue, which we reorganize and renumber as two, see Tex. R. App. P. 47.1, Knesek argues that: (1) his guilty plea was involuntary; and (2) the punishment imposed by the trial court was illegal. We affirm.
I. Background
Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Moreover, the State filed no appellee's brief to assist us in the resolution of this case. Accordingly, we decide this appeal based on the brief filed by Knesek and the record before us.
Knesek was indicted four separate times for organized criminal activity in connection with his involvement in an identity theft ring. The first three indictments — filed on May 15, 2008, June 12, 2008, and October 23, 2008 — stated that "on or about December 5, 2007," Knesek "did then and there, with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination, . . . conspire to commit the offense of Fraudulent Use of Identifying information. . . ." See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51(b)-(c) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The final indictment, filed on November 13, 2008, included two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity: count one alleged that Knesek conspired to commit identity theft "on or about September 1, 2007 to December 5, 2007," see id.; count two alleged that Knesek so conspired "on or about April 1, 2007 to August 31, 2007." On November 21, 2008, Knesek was arraigned on the November 13 two-count indictment. On December 3, 2008, Knesek pleaded guilty to both counts pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, in which the State agreed to recommend punishment between five and ten years' imprisonment for each count; Knesek agreed to the punishment recommendation. The trial court accepted the punishment range recommended by the State, sentenced Knesek to ten years' confinement for each count, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court also certified Knesek's limited right to appeal, allowing an appeal only of matters "raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial." See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 44.02 (Vernon 2006). This appeal followed. II. Involuntary Plea
By one issue, Knesek argues that his guilty plea was involuntary. However, "we have no power to review an appeal by a criminal defendant of issues associated with the voluntariness of a felony plea entered pursuant to an agreed punishment recommendation that the trial court followed." Escochea v. State, 139 S.W.3d 67, 75 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (citing Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (en banc)). We are therefore without authority to review Knesek's voluntariness issue, and this issue is overruled. III. Illegal Sentence
By a second issue, although he never clearly explains it as such, Knesek appears to contend that the ten-year sentence imposed by the trial court for count two was illegal. However, Knesek cites no authority supporting this argument and provides us with no "clear and concise" argument for this apparent contention. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Knesek has therefore waived this issue on appeal. See Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384, 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (en banc) (concluding that an appellant waived consideration of an issue on appeal by failing to include authority or argument). His second issued is overruled. IV. Conclusion
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.