Michael Anthony Sheffield v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 290th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Annotate this Case
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00605-CR
Michael Anthony SHEFFIELD,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2007-CR-6495
Honorable Sharon MacRae, 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

Michael Anthony Sheffield pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. As part of his plea-bargain, Sheffield signed a waiver of his right to appeal. The trial court imposed sentence 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). Sheffield timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk's record, which includes the plea bargain agreement and the trial court's Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, 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 this is a plea bargain case; that is, the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Sheffield'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 Sheffield 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Do not publish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.