Jerry Alexander v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 22, 2004
• Docket: 03-04-00537-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00537-CR

NO. 03-04-00538-CR

Jerry Alexander, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 2024508 & 3021426, HONORABLE CHARLES F. CAMPBELL JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Jerry Alexander seeks to appeal from orders revoking community supervision. This Court has received copies of Alexander's notices of appeal, copies of the revocation orders, and copies of the trial court's certifications that these are plea-bargain cases and there is no right of appeal.

The restrictions on appeal in appellate rule 25.2(a)(2) apply to appeals attacking the validity of the defendant's conviction, but do not apply to a subsequent appeal attacking the propriety of an order revoking probation. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (applying predecessor rule). It therefore appears from the limited record before us that the trial court's certifications are defective. ⁽¹⁾ Both the trial court and the parties were notified of this apparent defect, but the Court received no response. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1.

To avoid further delay, the district clerk is ordered to prepare the complete clerk's records in these causes. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5. Counsel for Alexander shall secure the preparation of the reporter's record. The time for filing the appellate record is extended to November 30, 2004. If the State is of the opinion that the certifications are correct and Alexander has no right of appeal, it may raise this contention in a motion to dismiss citing relevant authority and explaining why the holding in Feagin does not apply to these appeals.

It is ordered October 22, 2004.

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and Puryear

Do Not Publish

1. Assuming that Feagin applies here, the correct certification would be that this is not a plea-bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal.