Sloan, Macadio Rodguez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Opinion filed October 3, 2002.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NOS. 14-02-00836-CR;

14-02-00837-CR;

14-02-00838-CR

____________

MACADIO RODGUEZ SLOAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 909,816; 909,657 & 909,656

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled guilty on June 20, 2002, to the offenses of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and evading arrest. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant in cause numbers 909,816 and 909,657 to twenty-five years= incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant in cause number 909,656 to one year in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. As part of the plea bargain agreements, appellant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal. Because appellant has waived his right to appeal, we dismiss.

Appellant pled guilty in both causes and the trial court followed the plea bargain agreements in assessing punishment. Despite having waived the right to appeal, appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant chose to enter into an agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal. Appellant was informed of his right to appeal, knew with certainty the punishment he would receive, and that he could withdraw his plea if the trial court did not act in accordance with the plea agreement. As appellant was fully aware of the consequences when he waived his right to appeal, it is Anot unfair to expect him to live with those consequences now.@ Alzarkav. State, 60 S.W.3d 203, 206 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2001, pet. granted) (quoting Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 104 S. Ct. 2543, 2547-48, 81 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1984)). See also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Buck v. State, 45 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).

Appellant=s counsel on appeal filed a memorandum of law raising grounds for continuing the appeals. Counsel argues that she was not appointed until after the time for filing motions for new trial. Counsel further argues that appellant apprised the trial court of his desire for appointed counsel on appeal and of his claim that trial counsel was ineffective.

Counsel=s arguments do not address the basis for dismissalBthat appellant voluntarily waived his right to appeal as part of his plea bargain agreements with the State. Accordingly, appellant=s response to our notice of dismissal raises no grounds for continuing these appeals.

We dismiss the appeals.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Opinion filed October 3, 2002.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).