Samuel Ruiz Gonzales v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00065-CR

Samuel Ruiz GONZALES, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR11110 Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 27, 2025

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Samuel Ruiz Gonzalez pled guilty to the offense of

failure to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to four years in prison in accordance with

the terms of the agreement. 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 04-25-00065-CR

certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. R. 25.2(e). And the clerk’s record, which

includes the trial court’s certification, was filed in this court. See id. R. 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, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to

appeal, or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” Id. R. 25.2(a)(2). The

clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the

trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by

Gonzales. 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. Thus, the trial

court’s certification 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. R. 25.2(d).

We informed Gonzales that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 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 id. R. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2003, order). No amended trial court certification has been filed. Therefore, this appeal is

dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

DO NOT PUBLISH

-2-