Gerald Angel Mota v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 26, 2017
Docket04-17-00378-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Gerald Angel Mota v. State (Gerald Angel Mota 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
Gerald Angel Mota v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00378-CR

Gerald Angel Olveda MOTA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CR9430 Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 26, 2017

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the

punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by

the defendant; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

This court must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. State, 183

S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 04-17-00378-CR

On June 16, 2017, we notified Appellant that this appeal would be dismissed under Rule

25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that Appellant has the right of appeal was

made part of the appellate record by July 17, 2017. See TEX. R.APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears

v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.).

On July 17, 2017, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel, John J. Ritenour Jr., filed a response

stating that counsel had reviewed the record, and counsel conceded that this court must dismiss this

appeal.

Given Rule 25.2(d)’s requirements, the record, and Appellant’s response, we dismiss this

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613.

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-

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)
Daniels v. State
110 S.W.3d 174 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Chavez v. State
183 S.W.3d 675 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gerald Angel Mota v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerald-angel-mota-v-state-texapp-2017.