Roland Camarillo v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00753-CR

Roland CAMARILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CR9946 Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2025 DISMISSED Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charged offense and was sentenced within the terms of a plea bargain. The trial court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal states this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain and a written waiver of appeal, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by appellant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that appellant’s case is a plea

04-24-00753-CR

bargain case and appellant does not have a right of appeal. See id. R. 25.2(a)(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.” Id. The trial court’s certification does not indicate that the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal or that appellant meets the requirements of subsections (B) or (C).

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. R. 25.2(d). We issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification was made part of the appellate record by December 12, 2024. See id.; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No such amended trial court certification has been filed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH