Amador M. Valdez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Amador M. Valdez v. State

DecidedSeptember 28, 2006

Docket13-06-00337-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Amador M. Valdez v. State (Amador M. Valdez v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amador M. Valdez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

NUMBER 13-06-337-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_____________________________________________________________

AMADOR M. VALDEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, AMADOR M. VALDEZ, attempts to appeal a conviction for theft from person. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On June 12, 2006, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification.

On September 11, 2006, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response does not establish (1) that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or (2) that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 28th day of September, 2006.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI