Raymond C. Gonzales v. State
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-10-00834-CR
Raymond C. GONZALES, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010CR3838 Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Raymond Gonzales pled nolo contendere to theft
and was sentenced to 180 days in state jail and a fine of $1,500 in accordance with the terms of
his plea-bargain agreement. On October 12, 2010, the trial court signed a certification of
defendant’s right to appeal 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). After Gonzales filed a notice of appeal, the trial
court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The 04-10-00834-CR
clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See
id. 25.2(d).
“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, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission
to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes
the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the
prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written
motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its
permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately
reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and that Gonzales does not have a right to appeal. We must
dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been
made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).
We, therefore, warned Gonzales that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that he
had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1;
Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial
court certification has been filed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
Do not publish
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Raymond C. Gonzales v. State (Raymond C. Gonzales v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.