Ralph Contreras v. State ( 2020 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00074-CR
Ralph CONTRERAS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019CR8590
Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2020
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Ralph Contreras pled nolo contendere to theft under
$2,500 enhanced and was sentenced to eight months’ confinement in state jail and a fine of $800
in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On November 14, 2019, the trial court
signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the
defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Contreras filed a notice
of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See
04-20-00074-CR
id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has
been filed. See id. 25.2(d).
“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised
by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to
appeal; or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The
clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the
court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Contreras.
See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor
does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. Thus, the trial court’s
certification appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and that Contreras does
not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant
has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).
We informed Contreras that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that he had the
right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v.
State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court
certification has been filed. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish
-2-