Mario Alberto Salinas v. the State of Texas

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIO ALBERTO SALINAS, § No. 08-23-00039-CR

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § 119th Judicial District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Tom Green County, Texas

Appellee. § (TC# B-22-0675-SA)

OPINION

Mario Alberto Salinas, Appellant, is attempting to appeal his conviction of possession of a

controlled substance. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. 481.115(d).

Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the trial court enter

its certification of a defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other

appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The certification should be made part of the record

when notice of appeal is filed, but may be added by timely amendment or supplementation, or by

order of this Court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). When a trial court’s certification of right to appeal is

not present in the record on appeal, an appellate court should order the trial court to supplement

the trial record with the certification. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1), (c)(2); see Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The appeal must be dismissed if such certification has

not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on January 5, 2023. On January 27, 2023, this case was

transferred to this Court pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts. See

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. On February 14, 2023, the clerk’s record was thereafter filed.

Upon review of the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, the trial judge

certified that this criminal case is a plea bargain case, and Appellant has no right of appeal and has

waived his right of appeal. The certification includes the signatures of the trial judge, Appellant,

and Appellant’s trial counsel, which was signed on December 19, 2022.

By letter dated March 6, 2023, the Clerk of this Court requested counsel for Appellant

provide grounds authorizing this Court’s consideration of the appeal. A response was requested

within 10 days of the inquiry to otherwise avoid dismissal of the case. No response has been

provided and the 10-day period has now ended. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed for

want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

March 27, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)