Noel Ramirez Martin v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00323-CR No. 02-22-00324-CR ___________________________

NOEL RAMIREZ MARTIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 78th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court Nos. DC78-CR2022-0752-1, DC78-CR2022-0752-2

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Noel Ramirez Martin attempts to appeal his convictions, but he

waived his right of appeal as part of his plea bargain with the State.

Martin was charged with murder, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon,

and possession of a controlled substance. After a jury found him guilty of the first

two charges, the State offered to dismiss the third charge if Martin agreed to 40 years’

confinement for murder and 10 years’ confinement for unlawful possession.1 Martin

agreed, and the trial court entered judgments of conviction in accordance with the

plea bargain.2

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that

were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial

court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized

by statute.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02. The

trial court must file a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, clarifying

whether the case involved a plea bargain and whether the defendant waived his right

of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

1 The plea bargain provided that Martin’s two sentences would run concurrently. 2 The trial court also imposed a fine of $100 for Martin’s unlawful possession of a firearm, which appears to have been part of the plea bargain as well.

2 Martin’s judgments of conviction state that “[a] Plea Agreement was reached,”

and the trial court signed certifications confirming that “the defendant has waived the

right of appeal” and that the cases are “plea-bargain case[s], and the defendant has

NO right of appeal.”3 Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

Because criminal appeals “must be dismissed if a certification that shows the

defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record,” Tex. R. App.

P. 25.2(d), we informed Martin that we could dismiss his appeals unless he showed

grounds for continuing them. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Martin responded

with a letter raising a myriad of complaints about the trial court proceedings. But

none of his complaints address our jurisdictional concerns or show grounds for

continuing his appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Accordingly, we dismiss Martin’s appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: March 9, 2023

The certifications were signed not only by the trial court but also by Martin 3

and Martin’s trial counsel. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).