Harrinson Estupinan v. State
Opinion
Opinion issued August 15, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00388-CR ——————————— HARRINSON ESTUPINAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1505492
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Harrinson Estupinan, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of
aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03(a). In return
for Estupinan’s plea, the State recommended a punishment cap of ten years’
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (holding that agreement to cap on
punishment is plea bargain for purposes of Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2).
Estupinan signed the plea bargain which also contained the statement that accepting
the plea bargain meant that he waived his right to appeal. After a presentence
investigation hearing, the trial court signed a judgment of conviction imposing a
sentence of five years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Estupinan filed a notice of appeal.
In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were
raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s
permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
This is a plea-bargain case, and appellant also waived the right to appeal. The trial
court’s certification is included in the record on appeal and states that appellant
waived his right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the
trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Because Estupinan has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See
Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680 (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to
ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule
25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the
basis for the appeal.”).
2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Do not publish.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
Harrinson Estupinan v. State (Harrinson Estupinan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.