Timmy Wayne Holder v. State

Opinion

Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 14, 2015

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-01087-CR No. 05-15-01088-CR

TIMMY WAYNE HOLDER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-31100-I, F15-30328-I

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Myers Opinion by Justice Francis Timmy Holder was convicted on his negotiated guilty pleas of two offenses of felony

assault involving family violence. In cause no. 05-15-01088-CR, appellant also pleaded true to

one enhancement paragraph alleging a prior felony conviction. The trial court followed the plea

agreements and sentenced appellant to imprisonment for four years in each case. Appellant

waived his right to appeal the cases as part of the plea agreements, and the trial court has

certified that appellant does not have the right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); Dears

v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2000). We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

/Molly Francis/ Do Not Publish MOLLY FRANCIS TEX. R. APP. P. 47 JUSTICE 151087F.U05

–2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

TIMMY WAYNE HOLDER, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-15-01087-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F14-31100-I. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Bridges and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered September 14, 2015.

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

TIMMY WAYNE HOLDER, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-15-01088-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-30328-I. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Bridges and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

–4–