Michael Edward Lout v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

NOs. 12-23-00129-CR
12-23-00130-CR
12-23-00131-CR
12-23-00132-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
MICHAEL EDWARD LOUT, § APPEAL FROM THE 475TH
APPELLANT
§ DISTRICT COURT
V.
§ SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, Michael Edward Lout pleaded “guilty” to four
counts of aggravated robbery. In accordance with the agreed punishment recommendation, the
trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-six years in prison in each case, to run concurrently.
Appellant appealed.
The clerk’s record has been filed and the trial court’s certification in each case states that
this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal. The certifications are signed
by Appellant and his counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Appellant also signed a waiver of
appeal in each case.
When the defendant is the appellant, the record must include the trial court’s certification
of the defendant’s right of appeal. Id. This Court 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. Based on
our review of the record, the trial court’s certifications appear to accurately state that these are
plea bargain cases and Appellant has no right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review record to determine whether
trial court’s certification is accurate). Because the trial court did not grant Appellant the right to
appeal, we dismiss the appeals.
Opinion delivered June 30, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JUNE 30, 2023
NO. 12-23-00129-CR
MICHAEL EDWARD LOUT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 475th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 475-0143-23)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JUNE 30, 2023
NO. 12-23-00130-CR
MICHAEL EDWARD LOUT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 475th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 475-0144-23)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JUNE 30, 2023
NO. 12-23-00131-CR
MICHAEL EDWARD LOUT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 475th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 475-0145-23)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JUNE 30, 2023
NO. 12-23-00132-CR
MICHAEL EDWARD LOUT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 475th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 475-0146-23)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J