Lastrapes, Bendell Mitchell v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Lastrapes, Bendell Mitchell v. State

DecidedMay 9, 2002

Docket14-02-00329-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Lastrapes, Bendell Mitchell v. State (Lastrapes, Bendell Mitchell 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

Lastrapes, Bendell Mitchell v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed and Opinion filed May 9, 2002

Dismissed and Opinion filed May 9, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00329-CR

BENDEL MITCHELL LASTRAPES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 888,650

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance on March 4, 2002. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years= imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. As part of the plea bargain agreement, appellant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal. Because appellant has waived his right to appeal, we dismiss.

Appellant pled guilty and the trial court followed the plea bargain agreement in assessing punishment. Despite having waived the right to appeal, appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant chose to enter into an agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal. Appellant was informed of his right to appeal, knew with certainty the punishment he would receive, and that he could withdraw his plea if the trial court did not act in accordance with the plea agreement. As appellant was fully aware of the consequences when he waived his right to appeal, it is Anot unfair to expect him to live with those consequences now.@ Alzarka v. State, 60 S.W.3d 203, 206 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2001, pet. filed September 28, 2001) (quoting Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 2547-48, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984)). See also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Buck v. State, 45 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed May 9, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Guzman, and Edelman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

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

Dismissed and Opinion filed May 9, 2002

Dismissed and Opinion filed May 9, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-02-00329-CR

BENDEL MITCHELL LASTRAPES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 888,650

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance on March 4, 2002. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years= imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. As part of the plea bargain agreement, appellant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal. Because appellant has waived his right to appeal, we dismiss.

Appellant pled guilty and the trial court followed the plea bargain agreement in assessing punishment. Despite having waived the right to appeal, appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant chose to enter into an agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal. Appellant was informed of his right to appeal, knew with certainty the punishment he would receive, and that he could withdraw his plea if the trial court did not act in accordance with the plea agreement. As appellant was fully aware of the consequences when he waived his right to appeal, it is Anot unfair to expect him to live with those consequences now.@ Alzarka v. State, 60 S.W.3d 203, 206 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2001, pet. filed September 28, 2001) (quoting Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 2547-48, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984)). See also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Buck v. State, 45 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed May 9, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Guzman, and Edelman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lastrapes, Bendell Mitchell v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lastrapes-bendell-mitchell-v-state-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack