Nathan Veizer v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00585-CR
Nathan VEIZER,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2006-CR-2600
Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

 

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed: October 10, 2007

 

DISMISSED

Nathan Veizer pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. As part of the plea bargain, Veizer signed a waiver of his right to appeal. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating that this "is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal." See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Veizer timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk's record, which includes the trial court's Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). 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.

The clerk's record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Veizer's appointed appellate counsel has advised the court in writing that she has reviewed the record and can find no right of appeal. After reviewing the record and counsel's notice, we agree that Veizer does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk's record to determine whether trial court's certification is accurate). We therefore dismiss this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish

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.