Jonathan Pedroza v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 16, 2005
• Docket: 06-05-00135-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00135-CR

JONATHAN PEDROZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 263rd Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 907742

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Jonathan Pedroza has filed a notice of appeal from the final adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault. We have now received the certification of Pedroza's right of appeal as required by Tex. R. App. P. 25.2. That certification states that Pedroza has no right of appeal.

          Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Because the trial court's certification affirmatively shows Pedroza has no right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss his appeal.

          We dismiss the appeal.

                                                                           Donald R. Ross

                                                                           Justice

Date Submitted:      August 15, 2005

Date Decided:         August 16, 2005

Do Not Publish

s testified as to his familiarity with Appellant's voice and unequivocally identified the voice as belonging to Appellant; the voice, as identified, admitted to the theft. Thus, the jury was presented with legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The contention of error is overruled.

We affirm the judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley

Date Submitted: August 18, 2008

Date Decided: September 4, 2008

Do Not Publish

1.

This case has been transferred to this Court as part of the Texas Supreme Court's docket equalization program.

2.

The evidence is not clear whether the gate was locked or unlocked and whether the lock actually worked.