John Paul Gomez v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 12, 2009
Docket04-09-00341-CR
StatusPublished

This text of John Paul Gomez v. State (John Paul Gomez 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
John Paul Gomez v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00341-CR

John Paul GOMEZ, Appellant

v.

STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2008-CR-11706 Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2009

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant John Paul Gomez pled guilty to aggravated

assault on a public servant and was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment in accordance with the

terms of his plea-bargain agreement. The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to

appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX .

R. APP . P. 25.2(a)(2). 04-09-00341-CR

Rule 25.2(d) provides that “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the

defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX . R.

APP . P. 25.2(d). Thus, this court issued an order stating Gomez’s appeal would be dismissed unless

an amended trial court certification showing that Gomez had the right of appeal was made part of

the appellate record. See Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003,

order); TEX . R. APP . P. 25.2(d); 37.1. No amended trial court certification has been filed. Instead,

Gomez’s appellate counsel has filed a letter stating she has reviewed the appellate record and “this

court has no choice but to dismiss the appeal.” In light of the record presented, we agree with

Gomez’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal

is dismissed.

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Daniels v. State
110 S.W.3d 174 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John Paul Gomez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-paul-gomez-v-state-texapp-2009.