William Crawford, Jr. v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 18, 2009
Docket10-08-00394-CR
StatusPublished

This text of William Crawford, Jr. v. State (William Crawford, Jr. 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
William Crawford, Jr. v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00394-CR

WILLIAM CRAWFORD, JR., Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court No. FBR-08-19251

MEMORANDUM OPINION

William Crawford, Jr. pleaded guilty to burglary. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the

court sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Crawford timely filed a pro se

notice of appeal.

The trial court’s certification regarding Crawford’s right of appeal states that this:

(1) “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal”; and (2) “the

defendant has waived the right of appeal.” Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d)

provides in pertinent part, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made a part of the record under these

rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

The trial court’s certification affirmatively shows that Crawford has no right of

appeal. Thus, the Clerk of this Court notified Crawford that the appeal may be

dismissed if he did not file a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See

id. 44.3.

By way of response, Crawford argues that he received ineffective assistance from

his court-appointed trial counsel. He alleges five instances of ineffective assistance and

further alleges that the court erroneously denied his request to obtain other counsel or

proceed pro se. However, these are issues which may not be addressed in an appeal

from a plea-bargained conviction without the trial court’s permission. See Estrada v.

State, 149 S.W.3d 280, 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (per curiam).

The trial court did not give Crawford permission to appeal. The trial court’s

certification affirmatively shows that Crawford has no right of appeal. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal. Id. at 285; High v. State, 115 S.W.3d 581, 582 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003,

pet. ref’d) (mem. op.).

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed February 18, 2009 Do not publish [CR25]

Crawford v. State Page 2

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

Related

Estrada v. State
149 S.W.3d 280 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
High v. State
115 S.W.3d 581 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Crawford, Jr. v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-crawford-jr-v-state-texapp-2009.