Marcos Raul Arredondo v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Marcos Raul Arredondo v. State

DecidedJune 30, 2010

Docket08-10-00142-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Marcos Raul Arredondo v. State (Marcos Raul Arredondo 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

Marcos Raul Arredondo v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARCOS RAUL ARREDONDO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§ § § § §

§

No. 08-10-00142-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20050D04168)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Marcos Arredondo, was indicted for three counts of indecency with a child. Pursuant to plea-bargain agreement with the State, Arredondo pleaded guilty in exchange for the State's recommendation of ten years' deferred adjudication. As part of the signed admonishments, Appellant was advised that if the trial court followed the plea agreement, he would have to obtain the court's permission before prosecuting an appeal on any matter except for those matters raised by written motion filed and heard prior to trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The trial court followed the plea agreement and sentenced Appellant to ten years' deferred adjudication.

Appellant now attempts to appeal his conviction, claiming that his plea was involuntary. However, the trial court's certification states that this was a plea-bargain case and Appellant has no right of appeal. Because Appellant is not appealing any pretrial matters ruled upon by the trial court but instead is attacking the voluntariness of his plea, he was required to first obtain the trial court's permission to raise such a complaint on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Because he did not, we lack jurisdiction to consider it.⁽¹⁾

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

June 30, 2010

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

1. We previously asked the parties to address our jurisdiction over the appeal, and Appellant replied, conceding that we lack jurisdiction given the trial court's certification and the matters he seeks to raise on appeal.

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

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARCOS RAUL ARREDONDO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§ § § § §

§

No. 08-10-00142-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20050D04168)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Marcos Arredondo, was indicted for three counts of indecency with a child. Pursuant to plea-bargain agreement with the State, Arredondo pleaded guilty in exchange for the State's recommendation of ten years' deferred adjudication. As part of the signed admonishments, Appellant was advised that if the trial court followed the plea agreement, he would have to obtain the court's permission before prosecuting an appeal on any matter except for those matters raised by written motion filed and heard prior to trial. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The trial court followed the plea agreement and sentenced Appellant to ten years' deferred adjudication.

Appellant now attempts to appeal his conviction, claiming that his plea was involuntary. However, the trial court's certification states that this was a plea-bargain case and Appellant has no right of appeal. Because Appellant is not appealing any pretrial matters ruled upon by the trial court but instead is attacking the voluntariness of his plea, he was required to first obtain the trial court's permission to raise such a complaint on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Because he did not, we lack jurisdiction to consider it.⁽¹⁾

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

June 30, 2010

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

1. We previously asked the parties to address our jurisdiction over the appeal, and Appellant replied, conceding that we lack jurisdiction given the trial court's certification and the matters he seeks to raise on appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Marcos Raul Arredondo v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcos-raul-arredondo-v-state-texapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack