Jorge Luis Tamez Estrada v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 16, 2004
• Docket: 13-03-00157-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                 NUMBER 13-03-157-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JORGE LUIS TAMEZ ESTRADA,                                               Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                     Appellee.

On appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Yañez

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

         Appellant, Jorge Luis Estrada, attempts to appeal a conviction for first-degree and third-degree felony offenses of injury to a child. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

         On March 10, 2004, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification.

         On May 3, 2004, and May 7, 2004, counsel filed letter briefs with this Court. On May 13, 2004, the State moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds that appellant has no right to appeal.

         Counsel’s briefs filed with this Court do not establish (1) that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or (2) that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. Counsel contends that appellant has a right to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. However, appellant waived any appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Escochea v. State, 139 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). The proper vehicle for voluntariness and ineffectiveness issues is a collateral attack that permits the development of facts concerning the claims. Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 773 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Escochea, 139 S.W.3d at 84.

         The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Any pending motions are denied as moot.           

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)

Memorandum Opinion delivered

and filed this the 16^th day of September, 2004.