Carlos Marquez v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 1, 2016
Docket04-16-00325-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Carlos Marquez v. State (Carlos Marquez 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
Carlos Marquez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 1, 2016

No. 04-16-00325-CR

Carlos MARQUEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas Trial Court No. 13-07-00117CRF Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding

ORDER Carlos Marquez entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which Marquez pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. As part of his plea bargain, Marquez waived his right to file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Marquez timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id.

The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that Marquez does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate).

Marquez is hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that Marquez has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by June 22, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court reporter.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 1st day of June, 2016.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court

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

Related

Dears v. State
154 S.W.3d 610 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Daniels v. State
110 S.W.3d 174 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Carlos Marquez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-marquez-v-state-texapp-2016.