Victor Carrillo v. the State of Texas
This text of Victor Carrillo v. the State of Texas (Victor Carrillo 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. 04-25-00259-CR
Victor CARRILLO, Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024-0209-CR Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 18, 2025
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Victor Carrillo pled nolo contendere to the offense
of improper relationship between educator and student and was sentenced to five years in prison
in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On November 5, 2024, 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 Carrillo filed a notice of
appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See 04-25-00259-CR
id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s certification, has been filed. See id.
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. 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
Carrillo. 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 Carrillo
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. 25.2(d).
We informed Carrillo that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 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. 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). 1 0F
DO NOT PUBLISH
1 On June 2, 2025, Carrillo filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion to dismiss his appeal voluntarily pursuant to Rule 42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Because we have disposed of his appeal under Rule 25.2(d), his extension request is denied as moot.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Victor Carrillo v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-carrillo-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.