Gilberto Reyes Vasquez v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 24, 2003
Docket01-03-00454-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Gilberto Reyes Vasquez v. State (Gilberto Reyes Vasquez 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
Gilberto Reyes Vasquez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion




In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________


NOS. 01-03-00453-CR

          01-03-00454-CR


GILBERTO REYES VASQUEZ, Appellant


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee





On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 943580 and 910877




MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and aggravated assault. In accordance with a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 10 years on the driving while intoxicated charge, and to confinement for 15 years on the aggravated assault charge, to run concurrently. Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal in each case. We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

               Rule 25.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

In a plea bargain case — that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant — a defendant may appeal only:

(A)those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or

(B)after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.


Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

               The trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal in each case states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

               We also note that appellant waived his right to appeal in each case. See Buck v. State, 45 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).

               Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

               All pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Alcala and Higley.

Do not publish.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

Buck v. State
45 S.W.3d 275 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gilberto Reyes Vasquez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilberto-reyes-vasquez-v-state-texapp-2003.