Smith v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Smith v. State

265 S.W.3d 91, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3530, 2008 WL 2058264

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 15, 2008

Docket01-08-00127-CR

StatusPublished

This text of 265 S.W.3d 91 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 265 S.W.3d 91, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3530, 2008 WL 2058264 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appellant, Cedric Shun Hill, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault, and, in accordance with his plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for two years. Along with the plea, appellant, appellant’s counsel, and the State signed a stipulation of evidence which included, among others, the following statements: “I intend to enter a plea of guilty and understand that the prosecutor will recommend that my punishment should be set at two years TDC; I agree to that recommendation ... Further, I waive my right of appeal which I may have should the court accept the foregoing plea bargain agreement between myself and the prosecutor.” The trial court’s judgment is stamped, “Appeal waived. No permission to appeal granted.”

After the trial court sentenced appellant to punishment that fell within the terms of the plea bargain agreement, the trial court certified that this case is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal. Appellant did not request the trial court’s permission to appeal any pre-trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for appellant to appeal. Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. This appeal followed.

We conclude that the certification of the right of appeal filed by the trial court is supported by the record and that appellant has no right of appeal due to the agreed plea bargain. Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(a). Be *92 cause appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal “without further action.” Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).

Accordingly, the appeal in Trial Court Cause Number 1111414 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appellant, Cedric Shun Hill, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault, and, in accordance with his plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for two years. Along with the plea, appellant, appellant’s counsel, and the State signed a stipulation of evidence which included, among others, the following statements: “I intend to enter a plea of guilty and understand that the prosecutor will recommend that my punishment should be set at two years TDC; I agree to that recommendation ... Further, I waive my right of appeal which I may have should the court accept the foregoing plea bargain agreement between myself and the prosecutor.” The trial court’s judgment is stamped, “Appeal waived. No permission to appeal granted.”

After the trial court sentenced appellant to punishment that fell within the terms of the plea bargain agreement, the trial court certified that this case is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal. Appellant did not request the trial court’s permission to appeal any pre-trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for appellant to appeal. Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. This appeal followed.

We conclude that the certification of the right of appeal filed by the trial court is supported by the record and that appellant has no right of appeal due to the agreed plea bargain. Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(a). Be *92 cause appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal “without further action.” Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).

Accordingly, the appeal in Trial Court Cause Number 1111414 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.W.3d 91, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3530, 2008 WL 2058264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-texapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack