Jose Arturo Oliva-Ortiz v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 19, 2011
• Docket: 14-11-00325-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 19, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00325-CR

JOSE ARTURO OLIVA-ORTIZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1288480

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.  In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on March 18, 2011, to confinement for two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.  We dismiss the appeal.

Because appellant’s plea was made pursuant to a plea bargain, he may appeal only matters raised by a written pre-trial motion or with the trial court’s permission.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  The record does not contain any pre-trial rulings or grant of permission to appeal.^[1]  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

---

^[1]   The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal does not reflect whether the defendant has the right to appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  We need not have the certification corrected, however, because the record demonstrates that the defendant has no right of appeal.  See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (granting mandamus to vacate appellate court’s order to correct trial court certification, noting that purpose of certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non-appealable cases).