Edgar Antonio Aguirre v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 248th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 11, 2008 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ____________________ NOS. 01-08-00659-CR 01-08-00660-CR ____________________ EDGAR AGUIRRE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1166920 and 1162002 MEMORANDUM OPINION1 We lack jurisdiction to hear these appeals. Appellant, Edgar Aguirre, pleaded guilty to two separate offenses of aggravated robbery, and in accordance with 1 Hon. Joan Campbell presided. Trial counsel were Randy Martin for appellant and R. Newaz for the State. his plea bargain agreements with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for 10 years in each case. Along with the plea, appellant, appellant s counsel, and the State signed a stipulations of evidence which included, among others, the following statements: I intend to enter a plea of guilty and understand that the prosecutor will recommend that my punishment should be set at 10 years TDC; I agree to that recommendation...Further, I waive my right of appeal which I may have should the court accept the foregoing plea bargain agreement between myself and the prosecutor. The trial court s judgments are stamped, Appeal waived. No permission to appeal granted. After the trial court sentenced appellant to punishment that fell within the terms of the plea bargain agreements, the trial court certified that both cases are pleabargain cases and the defendant has no right to appeal. Appellant did not request the trial court s permission to appeal any pre-trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for appellant to appeal. Appellant filed timely pro se notices of appeal. We conclude that the certifications of right of appeal filed by the trial court are supported by the record and that appellant has no right of appeal due to the agreed plea bargains. TEX. R. APP. P 25.2(a). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss these appeals without further action. Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 2 Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are denied as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice Taft, Keyes, and Alcala. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
