Damon Raynord Nobles v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 10, 2013
Docket01-12-00689-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Damon Raynord Nobles v. State (Damon Raynord Nobles 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
Damon Raynord Nobles v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Opinion issued January 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-12-00689-CR ——————————— DAMON RAYNORD NOBLES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1309403

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Damon Raynord Nobles pleaded guilty, pursuant to an agreement

with the State that punishment be capped at confinement for 25 years, to the felony

offense of theft from an elderly person of property valued at $20,000 to $100,000.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2012). The trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with appellant’s plea agreement with the State,

assessed punishment at confinement for 25 years. The trial court certified that this

is a plea-bargain case and that appellant does not have the right of appeal.

Nevertheless, appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A plea bargain case is one in which “a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo

contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by

the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). In a

plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were raised by

written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial court’s

permission to appeal. Id. The appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing

that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

The clerk’s record reflects that appellant pleaded guilty in exchange for the

State’s recommendation that punishment be capped at confinement for 25 years.

An agreement to a recommended cap on punishment constitutes a plea bargain.

See Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Wilson v.

State, 264 S.W.3d 104, 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Waters

v. State, 124 S.W.3d 825, 826–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet.

ref’d). The record of the plea hearing reflects that the trial court so admonished

2 appellant and that appellant understood that he would not have the right of appeal.

The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 25 years, in accordance

with appellant’s agreement with the State.1 Further, appellant’s counsel has filed a

letter stating that, based on the plea bargain in this case, the Court is without

jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We conclude that the record supports the trial

court’s certification. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610,

615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

The trial court did not rule adversely to appellant on any pre-trial matters

and did not give permission for appellant to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“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 lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

1 The trial court’s judgment states, “Term of Plea Bargain: Without an Agreed Recommendation.” Such language does not convert the plea to an open plea when, as here, the plea was entered pursuant to agreed sentencing cap. See Threadgill v. State, 120 S.W.3d 871, 872 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (holding statement in record indicating that there was no agreed recommendation did not convert proceeding into open plea when plea was entered pursuant to agreed sentencing cap).

3 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

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)
Threadgill v. State
120 S.W.3d 871 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Wilson v. State
264 S.W.3d 104 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Waters v. State
124 S.W.3d 825 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Chavez v. State
183 S.W.3d 675 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Shankle v. State
119 S.W.3d 808 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Damon Raynord Nobles v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damon-raynord-nobles-v-state-texapp-2013.