Ervin Kay v. State
This text of Ervin Kay v. State (Ervin Kay 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.
Opinion
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 28, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-10-00010-CR
ERVIN KAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1028331
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery. In accordance with the terms of a plea-bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on September 29, 2005, to confinement for thirty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On December 22, 2009, appellant filed a request for an out-of-time appeal in the trial court. Even though the trial court did not grant the request, an appeal was assigned to this court. We dismiss the appeal.
First, 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). The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Moreover, this court lacks jurisdiction over this attempted appeal from a 2005 conviction. Neither the trial court nor this court may grant appellant an out-of-time appeal. The exclusive post-conviction remedy after final felony convictions in Texas courts is through a writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, pursuant to article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3(a) (Vernon Supp. 2009).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — Tex.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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ervin Kay v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ervin-kay-v-state-texapp-2010.