Tommy Shawn Rieck v. The State of TexasAppeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00570-CR Tommy Shawn RIECK, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR5851W Honorable Philip A. Kazen Jr., Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 9, 2013 DISMISSED The trial court s certification in this appeal states that this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. The clerk s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court s certification accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 04-13-00570-CR Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On September 11, 2013, we ordered that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no pet.). On September 23, 2013, Appellant s court-appointed counsel from the Bexar County Appellate Public Defender s Office filed a response stating that he had reviewed the record, and it showed that Appellant waived the right of appeal in writing as part of his plea bargain with the State. He concluded that this court has no choice but to dismiss the appeal. Given the record and Appellant s response, Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-
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.
