Desiree Oxendine v. State

Opinion

02-12-386 THRU 390-CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO.  02-12-00386-CR

NO.  02-12-00387-CR

NO.  02-12-00388-CR

NO.  02-12-00389-CR

NO.  02-12-00390-CR

Desiree Oxendine		APPELLANT
V.
The State of Texas		STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Appellant Desiree Oxendine attempts to appeal following her pleas of true to the State’s motions to revoke community supervision in each of these five cases.[2]  Following the plea agreements, the trial court sentenced Appellant to thirteen months in state jail in each case, each sentence to run concurrently with the others.

The trial court’s certifications of Appellant’s right to appeal state in each case 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 August 23, 2012, we notified Appellant that these appeals could be dismissed unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals.  Appellant’s attorney filed a response that does not present grounds for continuing the appeals.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are clear that in a plea-bargain case, an appellant 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.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  Because the trial court’s certifications reflect that Appellant has no right of appeal, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  September 20, 2012

NO. 02-12-00386-CR

Desiree Oxendine The State of Texas

§

From the 371st District Court of Tarrant County (1267123D) September 20, 2012 Per Curiam (nfp)

JUDGMENT

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed.  It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

NO. 02-12-00387-CR

of Tarrant County (1267785D)

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed.  It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

NO. 02-12-00388-CR

of Tarrant County (1271270D)

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed.  It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

NO. 02-12-00389-CR

of Tarrant County (1271271D)

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed.  It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

NO. 02-12-00390-CR

of Tarrant County (1271272D)

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed.  It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

---

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[2]Appellant originally pleaded guilty in each of these cases to forgery by possession of a check with intent to pass.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(a), (d) (West 2011).