Clement Runnels v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 22, 2004
Docket13-04-00185-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Clement Runnels v. State (Clement Runnels 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
Clement Runnels v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion



NUMBER 13-04-185-CR


COURT OF APPEALS


THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________


CLEMENT RUNNELS,                                                                  Appellant,


v.


THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________


On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

__________________________________________________________________


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yañez

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam



         Appellant, CLEMENT RUNNELS, attempts to appeal a conviction for robbery. 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 April 15, 2004, 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 June 11, 2004, 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Do not publish.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).

Opinion delivered and filed this

the 22nd day of July, 2004.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clement Runnels v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clement-runnels-v-state-texapp-2004.