Richardson v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Richardson v. State

151 S.W.3d 710, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 10144, 2004 WL 2569421

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 12, 2004

Docket2-04-428-CR, 2-04-429-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 151 S.W.3d 710 (Richardson 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.

Bluebook

Richardson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 710, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 10144, 2004 WL 2569421 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Theo C. Richardson is attempting to appeal from his convictions for possession or transport of certain chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. We will dismiss the appeals.

We notified appellant that his appeals were subject to dismissal based on the trial court’s certification that these are plea-bargain cases and appellant has no right of appeal. In response, appellant asserts that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his cases because the indictments failed to state an offense.

The court of criminal appeals has held that a plea-bargaining defendant cannot appeal a jurisdictional issue unless, in accordance with appellate rule 25.2(a)(2), the appellant raised the issue in the trial court by written pretrial motion and obtained a pretrial ruling or the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. Griffin v. State, 145 S.W.3d 645, 647-648 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); see also Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant does not contend that he did either of these things. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals. See Griffin, 145 S.W.3d at 648-649.

DAUPHINOT, J. concurs without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Theo C. Richardson is attempting to appeal from his convictions for possession or transport of certain chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. We will dismiss the appeals.

We notified appellant that his appeals were subject to dismissal based on the trial court’s certification that these are plea-bargain cases and appellant has no right of appeal. In response, appellant asserts that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over his cases because the indictments failed to state an offense.

The court of criminal appeals has held that a plea-bargaining defendant cannot appeal a jurisdictional issue unless, in accordance with appellate rule 25.2(a)(2), the appellant raised the issue in the trial court by written pretrial motion and obtained a pretrial ruling or the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. Griffin v. State, 145 S.W.3d 645, 647-648 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); see also Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant does not contend that he did either of these things. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals. See Griffin, 145 S.W.3d at 648-649.

DAUPHINOT, J. concurs without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.W.3d 710, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 10144, 2004 WL 2569421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-state-texapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack