Drew Patterson v. State ( 2016 )

Opinion issued January 7, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00910-CR
———————————
DREW PATTERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1396819
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Drew Patterson, pleaded guilty to the offense of failure to stop and
render aid on February 28, 2014, with the agreed recommendation that he be placed
on deferred adjudication community supervision for two years. See TEX. TRANSP.
CODE ANN. §§ 550.021(a), (c) (West Supp. 2015). On February 28, 2014, the trial
court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for two
years, in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain with the State. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(a) (West Supp. 2015). The trial court certified that
this is a plea-bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 25.2(a)(2).
Appellant prematurely filed a pro se notice of appeal on January 13, 2014,
which is deemed timely filed on February 28, 2014, the date the order of deferred
adjudication states that the sentence of two years’ deferred adjudication community
supervision was imposed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.1(b).1 Appellant’s form notice of
appeal acknowledges that his punishment did not exceed the amount recommended
by the State and agreed to by appellant. However, appellant’s notice of appeal
contends that his guilty plea does not preclude appealing any rulings on pretrial
motions. Appellant also filed a “Motion for Hybrid Representation and a Post-
Judgment Motion” and a letter-motion for an extension of time to pay for the record
in this Court. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has
the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see
1
The trial clerk filed a Certificate of Failure to File Mark, dated October 19, 2015, in
this Court, explaining that the notice of appeal was not properly file marked at the
time it was received by the trial clerk and it would have been file marked on January
13, 2014, had it been file marked timely.
2
Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The trial court’s
certification of appellant’s right of appeal, which is attached to the notice of appeal,
states that this is a plea-bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).
In a plea-bargain case, where a defendant pleaded guilty and the punishment
did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the
defendant, as here, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by
written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s
permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West Supp. 2015);
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). However, the trial court’s certification states that this is
a plea-bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal, and the trial court did
not give its permission to appeal on any matters, including any rulings on pretrial
motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 615.
Because appellant has no right of appeal in this plea-bargain case, we must
dismiss this appeal without further action. See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 12
n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an
appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a), must dismiss a
prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”); see
also Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645,
3
649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining purpose of certification requirements is to
resolve cases that have no right of appeal quickly without expense of appointing
appellate counsel, preparing reporter’s record or preparing appellate brief).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4