Clara Soto v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                 Fourth Court of Appeals
    San Antonio, Texas
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    No. 04-14-00661-CR
    Clara SOTO,
    Appellant
    v.
    The
    The STATE of Texas,
    Appellee
    From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2013CR9377
    Honorable Mary D. Román, Judge Presiding
    PER CURIAM
    Sitting:           Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
    Karen Angelini, Justice
    Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
    Delivered and Filed: October 22, 2014
    DISMISSED
    The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain
    case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain,
    and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and
    agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the
    underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
    Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be
    dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part
    04-14-00661-CR
    of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On October 3, 2014, we ordered that
    this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification
    showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by October
    27, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 
    154 S.W.3d 610
    (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 
    110 S.W.3d 174
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.).
    Appellant’s counsel has filed a written response stating that counsel has reviewed the
    record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” As a result, counsel states he “can find no
    reason to seek an amended certification from the trial court.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1;
    see also Daniels v. State, 
    110 S.W.3d 174
    , 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light
    of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to
    dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
    PER CURIAM
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-14-00661-CR

Filed Date: 10/22/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015