Anthony Lamont Bullock v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00179-CR

ANTHONY LAMONT BULLOCK, APPELLANT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court Oldham County, Texas

Trial Court No. OCR-12C-021, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding

May 21, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Anthony Lamont Bullock, seeks to appeal his conviction of the offense of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams,1 and plea bargained sentence of five years’ incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and $5,000 fine. Because appellant waived his right of appeal, we will dismiss.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (West 2010).

An appeal must be dismissed unless a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). A valid waiver of appeal prevents a defendant from appealing without the trial court’s consent. Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

A defendant in a noncapital case may waive any right secured to him by law, including the right to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.14(a) (West 2005); Monreal, 99 S.W.3d at 617. A valid waiver which is voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made will prevent a defendant from appealing a conviction absent permission from the trial court. Monreal, 99 S.W.3d at 617. No attack on a waiver of the right to appeal will be entertained in the absence of factual allegations supporting a claim that the waiver was coerced or involuntary. Ex parte Tabor, 565 S.W.2d 945, 946 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Perez v. State, 885 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, no pet.). Merely filing a notice of appeal is insufficient to overcome the prior waiver of appeal. Perez, 885 S.W.2d at 570.

As a condition of the plea bargain between appellant and the State, appellant was required to waive his right of appeal. In addition to waiving his right of appeal, the record reflects that the terms of the plea agreement were that appellant would be found guilty of the charged offense and the State would recommend that appellant be sentenced to five years’ incarceration and a $5,000 fine. The judgment reflects that the trial court accepted this plea bargain.

The trial court noted on the “Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” that this was “a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal,”

3

and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” Based upon our review of the record, we find that appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right of appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Thus, he was required to obtain the trial court’s permission to appeal. Monreal, 99 S.W.3d at 617. Nothing in the record indicates that appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal.

Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (en banc) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.