Martin Anthony Casarez v. State
This text of Martin Anthony Casarez v. State (Martin Anthony Casarez 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.
Opinion
i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-08-00672-CR
Martin Anthony CASAREZ, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-CR-8706 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Catherine Stone, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2008
DISMISSED
Martin Anthony Casarez pleaded nolo contendere to murder committed under the immediate
influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause and signed a waiver of appeal. The trial
court found Casarez guilty, sentenced him to eighteen years confinement in the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division, and signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain
case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX . R. APP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Casarez timely filed 04-08-00672-CR
a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification,
has been filed. See TEX . R. APP . P. 25.2(d).
On October 1, 2008, we gave Casarez notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless an
amended trial court certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the
appellate record by October 31, 2008. See TEX . R. APP . P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110
S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL
21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).
No amended certification showing Casarez has the right to appeal has been filed. Instead,
counsel responded to our notice by filing a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We do not consider the brief. The motion to withdraw and the
appeal are dismissed. See TEX . R. APP . P. 25.2(d).
Do not publish
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Martin Anthony Casarez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-anthony-casarez-v-state-texapp-2008.