Sanchez v. State

109 S.W.3d 760, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 3926, 2003 WL 21011313
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 7, 2003·No. No. 04-03-00186-CR·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AMENDED CERTIFICATION ORDERED

In accordance with his plea bargain agreement, Rodolfo Sanchez was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Sanchez’s sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision. The trial court subsequently entered a judgment revoking Sanchez’s community supervision, and Sanchez seeks to appeal the revocation.

In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right of appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(d). The certification states that the underlying case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

Before the 2003 amendments to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, rule 25.2(b)(3) required a notice of appeal to specify that the appeal was for a jurisdictional defect, related to a pre-trial ruling on a written motion, or permission to appeal was granted in order to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. With regard to appeals of judgments revoking community supervision, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that such appeals were not limited by rule 40(b)(1), which was amended and replaced by rule 25.2(b)(3) in 1997. See Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.Crim.App.1998).

The 2003 amendments require trial courts to certify a defendant’s right of appeal under rule 25.2(a)(2). See Tex. R.App. P. 25.2(d). Rule 25.2(a)(2), like former rule 25.2(b)(3), limits a defendant’s right of appeal in plea bargain cases. See Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(a)(2). In plea bargain cases, rule 25.2(a)(2) only allows a defendant to appeal matters raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or if the defendant has the trial court’s permission to appeal. See id. Because the prior rule was held not to limit an appeal “attacking the propriety of orders revoking probation,” we hold that rule 25.2(a)(2) also does not limit such an appeal. Feagin, 967 S.W.2d at 419. Accordingly, the trial court’s certification is defective, and the trial court is ordered to correct the defect. See Tex.R.App. P. 37.1.

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

Sanchez v. State, 109 S.W.3d 760, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 3926, 2003 WL 21011313 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

109 S.W.3d 760 (Sanchez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Santos Gerardo Martinez
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Ex Parte Juan Jose Montoya Rodriguez
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Ex Parte Erick Vioney Arana Arriola
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Ex Parte Elvin Maudiel Lopez Dubon
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Ex Parte Alexis Pantoja Vasquez
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Leticia Lopez v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Ex Parte Noel Parks
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021
Shanetha C. Tate v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Michael P. Caracheo v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Ronardo Fairly v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018
Eduardo Reyes v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Eberto A. Mendez v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Clara Soto v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
Maria Dulce Martinez v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
Eddie Dean Riley, Jr. v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Carroll v. State
119 S.W.3d 838 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)