Ace Allen Kretzer Sr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 10, 2012
• Docket: 09-12-00081-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-12-00081-CR ____________________

ACE ALLEN KRETZER, SR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 1A District Court Newton County, Texas Trial Cause No. ND 6583 _____________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Ace Allen Kretzer, Sr. pleaded guilty to

aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court accepted the plea agreement,

sentenced Kretzer to thirty years in prison, the maximum sentence according to the plea

agreement, and noted the State’s agreement to dismiss other pending cases against

Kretzer. Kretzer subsequently filed a motion for new trial, in which he argued that his

plea was involuntary because he pleaded guilty under duress, threats, coercion, and fear

for the safety of his family members. At a hearing on the motion, Kretzer testified that

1 his attorney and other individuals made him feel that he had no choice but to plead guilty.

The trial court denied Kretzer’s motion.

Kretzer’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On April 19, 2012, we granted an extension of time for Kretzer

to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Kretzer.

We have reviewed the record and find that we lack jurisdiction over Kretzer’s

appeal. The trial court’s certification states that this is not a plea-bargain case, but the

record reflects otherwise. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also Shankle v. State, 119

S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Because the certification is contrary to the

record, it is defective. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005); see also Saldana v. State, 161 S.W.3d 763, 764 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2005, no

pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2).

APPEAL DISMISSED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on October 1, 2012 Opinion Delivered October 10, 2012 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.