Augustine Jesus Saucedo v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00668-CR
Augustine SAUCEDO,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2007-CR-6807
Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

 

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed: November 14, 2007

 

DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Augustine Saucedo pled nolo contendere to violating sex offender registration - annual (repeater) and was sentenced to six years imprisonment in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On August 22, 2007, the trial court signed a certification of defendant's right to appeal 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). After Saucedo filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk's record, which includes the trial court's rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d).

"In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal." Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk's record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk's record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. The trial court's certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and that Saucedo does not have a right to appeal. We 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. 25.2(d).

We, therefore, warned Saucedo that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that he had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d).

 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH