Mauricio Balderas v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 27, 2013·No. 04-12-00793-CR·Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00793-CR

Mauricio BALDERAS, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011-CR-0555 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 27, 2013

DISMISSED

On February 14, 2013, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the

right of appeal was made part of the appellate record within thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 175–76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2003, order). Appellant did not file an amended certification. The clerk’s record does not

contain a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial

court certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the 04-12-00793-CR

defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the

punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed

to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal. 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DO NOT PUBLISH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

Mauricio Balderas v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Mauricio Balderas v. State (Mauricio Balderas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniels v. State
110 S.W.3d 174 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)