Ryan Sullivan v. State ( 2020 )

Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 22, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00413-CR
No. 05-20-00414-CR
RYAN SULLIVAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-34385-W & F19-34386-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Ryan Sullivan was charged with fraudulent use or possession of more than
fifty items of identifying information and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. On
October 8, 2019, appellant pleaded guilty under plea bargain agreements with the
State. The trial court followed the plea agreements, placed appellant on deferred
adjudication for five years in each case, and certified that each was a “plea-bargain
case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” On November 4, 2019, appellant
signed a notice of appeal with both case numbers listed; this document was mailed
to the trial court judge in an envelope postmarked November 6, 2019. It was file-
stamped by the Dallas County District Clerk on March 2, 2020 and forwarded to this
Court on April 1, 2020.
A defendant perfects an appeal by filing with the trial court clerk, within thirty
days after the date sentence was imposed, a written notice of appeal showing his
desire to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b), (c), 26.2(a), (b). Under the prisoner
mailbox rule, if a pro se inmate timely delivers a document to prison authorities for
forwarding to the court clerk, the document is deemed filed when placed with prison
officials for mailing. Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338, 344 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010). Courts have interpreted court clerk liberally to include “agents of the district
clerk” and the clerk of the correct court of appeals. See Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d
39, 45‒46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Moore v. State, 840 S.W.2d 439, 441 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1992). However, mailing a notice of appeal to one’s attorney, the trial court,
or the trial court judge does not meet the requirements of the rule. Turner v. State,
529 S.W.3d 157, 159 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, no pet.) (holding prisoner
mailbox rule did not apply when appellant delivered envelope to prison authorities
for forwarding to trial judge); Bowen v. State, 05-19-01530-CR, 2020 WL 1042646,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 3, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for
publication) (concluding mailbox rule did not apply when notice was mailed to trial
court judge).
In these cases, the trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication on
October 8, 2019, making any notice of appeal due on November 7, 2019. See TEX.
–2–
R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant’s notice, post-marked November 6, 2019, was
mailed to “Tracy Holmes,” presiding judge of the 363rd Judicial District Court, then
forwarded to the district clerk who filed it on March 2, 2020. Because appellant’s
notice was not mailed to the court clerk, but rather to the trial court judge, the
prisoner mailbox rule does not apply, and appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely.
In addition, the trial court certified appellant’s cases were plea bargain cases
and that he had no right to appeal. A defendant who enters into a plea bargain
agreement with the State may appeal only matters raised by written motion filed and
ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. Chavez v.
State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Nothing in the record shows
appellant filed written pre-trial motions that were ruled on before trial. And the
record is clear that the trial court filed a certification stating the sentences in these
cases were the result of a plea bargain agreement and appellant has no right to appeal.
Under these circumstances, we have no alternative than to dismiss these
appeals. See Castillo v. Sate, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (in
absence of timely filed notice of appeal, court must dismiss appeal for want of
jurisdiction.).
/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
200413F.U05
–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RYAN SULLIVAN, Appellant On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-20-00413-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F19-34385-W.
Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Schenck and Molberg
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.
Judgment entered this 22nd day of April, 2020.
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RYAN SULLIVAN, Appellant On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-20-00414-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F19-34386-W.
Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Schenck and Molberg
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.
Judgment entered this 22nd day of April, 2020.
–5–