Donnie Ray Carrion v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 6, 2011
• Docket: 11-10-00252-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed January 6, 2011

                                                                       In The

  Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                         No. 11-10-00252-CR

                               DONNIE RAY CARRION, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                   On Appeal from the 350th District Court

                                                            Taylor County, Texas

                                                    Trial Court Cause No.  9435-D

                                            M E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N

            The trial court convicted Donnie Ray Carrion, upon his plea of guilty, of possession of cocaine and found both enhancement allegations to be true.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years.  We affirm.

            On appeal, appellant contends in two issues that the trial court erred by failing to provide him with counsel at the hearing on his pro se motion for new trial.  The State argues that this court lacks authority to consider appellant’s issues challenging the ruling on his postconviction motion under Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).  We agree.

            Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(2) provides that, in plea bargain agreement situations where the punishment assessed does not exceed that in the agreement, appellant may only challenge those matters raised in written motions ruled upon prior to trial or those matters that the trial court gives permission to challenge.  In Woods, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the “plain import of [former Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b)(3) now Rule 25.2(2)] is that appeals from plea bargain-case are limited to the situations set forth in the rule.  Consequently, a court of appeals is not authorized to address points of error that do not fall within . . . Rule [25.2(2)].”  Woods, 108 S.W.3d  at 316. 

In its certificate of right to appeal, the trial court gave appellant permission to appeal “as to the issue of whether or not the plea was voluntary.”  This is not the issue that appellant has briefed.  Therefore, we lack the authority to address the issues that appellant did brief.  Rule 25.2(2); Woods, 108 S.W.3d at 315-16.  Appellant’s issues are dismissed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

January 6, 2011

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.