Eligio Manolo Lopez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 16, 2024
• Docket: 14-24-00140-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Appeal dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 16, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00140-CR

ELIGIO MANOLO LOPEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1752311

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age. Appellant and the State agreed that appellant’s punishment would not exceed confinement in prison for more than thirty-five years and that the State would dismiss a related criminal proceeding in cause number 1800466. In accordance with the terms of this plea-bargain agreement with the State, the trial court assessed appellant to confinement for twenty years and a $100.00 fine. We dismiss the appeal. The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the court 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). An agreement that places a cap on punishment is a plea bargain for purposes of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2). Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Waters v. State, 124 S.W.3d 825, 826–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (holding reviewing court lacked jurisdiction when defendant pleaded guilty with sentencing cap of ten years, even though trial judge mistakenly certified defendant had right of appeal); Threadgill v. State, 120 S.W.3d 871, 872 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no. pet.) (holding statement in record indicating there was no agreed recommendation did not convert proceeding into open plea when plea was entered pursuant to agreed sentencing cap).

Because appellant’s plea was made pursuant to a plea bargain, he may appeal only matters raised by a written pretrial motion or with the trial court’s permission. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record does not contain any pretrial rulings, and the record does not reflect that the trial court has given permission to appeal any matter.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Spain and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).