Kenan Griffith White v. State ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                        In The
    Court of Appeals
    Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
    No. 07-19-00255-CR
    KENAN GRIFFITH WHITE, APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
    On Appeal from the 320th District Court
    Potter County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 66,559-D, Honorable Pamela Cook Sirmon, Presiding
    July 31, 2019
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
    Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Kenan Griffith White was
    convicted of assault against a family member1 and sentenced to ten years’ confinement.
    The trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal reflects that appellant’s case is
    a plea-bargain case with no right of appeal and that appellant has waived the right of
    1   TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(B) (West 2019).
    appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Notwithstanding the certification, appellant filed
    a notice of appeal, pro se, challenging his conviction.
    We are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dismiss an appeal “if a
    certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of
    the record.” By letter dated July 16, 2019, we notified appellant of the consequences of
    the certification and invited him to file an amended certification showing a right of appeal
    or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed a response but
    did not file an amended certification reflecting a right of appeal or establish grounds for
    continuing the appeal.2
    Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
    Judy C. Parker
    Justice
    Do not publish.
    2 In his response, appellant indicates that he seeks to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of
    counsel on appeal. Appellant may be entitled to relief by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus
    pursuant to article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Chavez v. State, 
    139 S.W.3d 43
    , 60 (Tex.
    App.—Corpus Christi 2004), aff’d, 
    183 S.W.3d 675
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“The proper vehicle for
    ineffectiveness and voluntariness issues is a collateral attack that permits the development of facts
    concerning the claims.”).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-19-00255-CR

Filed Date: 7/31/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2019