Kile Ryan Adams v. State ( 2018 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00678-CR
Kile Ryan ADAMS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017CR11315
Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2018
DISMISSED
The clerk’s record has been filed in this case. The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s
Rule 25.2 certification, which does not show appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2. We issued an order notifying appellant that this appeal would be dismissed within 30 days
of the order if two conditions were met: (1) a certification or amended certification showing
appellant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record; and (2) the trial court’s
certification is not defective. See id. R. 25.2(d) (requiring us to dismiss a criminal appeal if a
certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record).
04-18-00678-CR
Because no amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has been made part of
the appellate record, the only issue is whether the trial court’s certification is defective in the
notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005) (holding court of appeals must determine whether the certification is defective).
The trial court’s certification states this is a plea bargain case and the defendant has no
right of appeal. See R. 25.2(a); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. The clerk’s record
establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment
recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant in the plea bargain agreement. See
R. 25.2(a). The clerk’s record also does not show the trial court granted appellant permission to
appeal or contain any matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. See id.
Appellant’s counsel has not represented to this court that the trial court’s certification is defective
in the notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. We conclude the trial court’s certification is
not defective in its notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. Accordingly, we must dismiss
this appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-