Lucio Antonio Celis v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 5, 2022
• Docket: 05-22-00391-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 5, 2022

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00391-CR

LUCIO ANTONIO CELIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-36717-N

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Molberg We reinstate this appeal. When Lucio Antonio Celis filed a timely pro se

notice of appeal seeking to challenge his conviction for murder, we abated for the

appointment of counsel. Several days later, the trial court filed a letter, informing us

he had not appointed counsel because appellant “entered into a plea-bargain and

waived his right to appeal.” The trial court attached documents supporting this

statement. The following day, the clerk’s record was filed. After considering the trial

court’s response and the clerk’s record, we dismiss this appeal.

Appellant, who was represented by counsel, was indicted for capital murder.

He entered into a negotiated plea bargain with the State in which he agreed to judicially confess to murder and plead guilty in exchange for the State’s agreement

to strike certain language from the indictment (reducing the charge from capital

murder to murder) and recommend punishment at thirty-five years in prison. As

further consideration for the plea bargain, appellant waived his right to appeal. See

Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Following the plea

agreement, the trial court struck the phrase “and the defendant was then and there in

the course of committing and attempting to commit the offense of ROBBERY of

said deceased” from the indictment, reduced the offense from capital murder to

murder, found appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at thirty-five years in

prison. The trial court prepared and signed a rule 25.2(d) certification of appellant’s

right to appeal stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and [appellant] has NO right to

appeal” and appellant “has waived the right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

The certification is supported by the documents before the Court. See Dears v. State,

154 S.W.3d 610, 614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Because appellant waived his right to appeal in conjunction with the plea

agreement, we conclude we lack jurisdiction See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d);

Lundgren v. State, 434 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (when appellant

voluntarily waives right of appeal to secure benefits of plea bargain agreement,

subsequent notice of appeal fails to “initiate the appellate process”).

–2– We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

/Ken Molberg// KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE 220391f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

LUCIO ANTONIO CELIS, On Appeal from the 195th Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-36717-N. No. 05-22-00391-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Reichek and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Garcia participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered this 5th day of May, 2022.

–4–