Billy Edwin Keller v. State
This text of Billy Edwin Keller v. State (Billy Edwin Keller 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.
Opinion
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice
Catherine Stone, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 16, 2003
APPEAL DISMISSED
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.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Billy Edwin Keller v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billy-edwin-keller-v-state-texapp-2003.