Roland Camarillo v. the State of Texas
This text of Roland Camarillo v. the State of Texas (Roland Camarillo v. the State of Texas) 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
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).
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roland Camarillo v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roland-camarillo-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.