Ricardo Ordonez v. State
This text of Ricardo Ordonez v. State (Ricardo Ordonez 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
Opinion issued October 16, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00180-CR ——————————— RICARDO ORDONEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1399320
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ricardo Ordonez, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of
aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age.1 The trial court found
appellant guilty and, in accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2014). agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to 35 years’ imprisonment. Acting
pro se, appellant filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
A plea bargain case is one in which “a defendant's plea was guilty or nolo
contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by
the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). In a
plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by
written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s
permission to appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006);
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing
that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id.
The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the
defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record
supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss
this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A
court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who
2 plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited
appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any
pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ricardo Ordonez v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricardo-ordonez-v-state-texapp-2014.