Kelly Patrick Amos v. State of Texas--Appeal from 385th District Court of Midland County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed April 26, 2012 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00088-CR __________ KELLY PATRICK AMOS, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 385th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR38802 MEMORANDUM OPINION Kelly Patrick Amos filed a pro se notice of appeal. Upon reviewing the file in this case, this court notified appellant by letter dated April 5, 2012, that the trial court had certified that appellant had no right of appeal and that appellant had waived his right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). We requested that appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellant has responded and requests that his appeal be continued based upon the injurious pretrial conduct of his trial counsel. We dismiss the appeal. The clerk s record indicates that appellant was charged with two counts of theft of property, that he entered into a plea bargain agreement with the State in each count, that he signed in each count a written waiver of his right to appeal, and that he pleaded guilty to both counts. The trial court assessed punishment pursuant to the terms of the plea bargain in each count at confinement in a state jail facility for fourteen months. Thus, the trial court s certification in each count is supported by the record and is not defective. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). These certifications reflect that appellant has no right to appeal and also that he waived his right to appeal. Because appellant s appeal is prohibited by Rule 25.2, we must dismiss the appeal without further action. Rule 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM April 26, 2012 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak, J. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
