ANTONE RICHIE v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 94th District Court of Nueces County

NUMBER 13-00-214-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

 ANTONE RICHIE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Ya ez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant, Antone Richie, pleaded guilty to assault. The trial court sentenced Richie in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. Richie filed a pro se notice of appeal. The trial court's certification of Richie=s right to appeal shows that this is a "plea bargain case, and the Defendant has NO right of appeal." See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that a defendant may appeal only matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court's permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). There is nothing in the record to support a finding that appellant filed written pre trial motions that were ruled on before trial. The record is clear that the trial court filed a certification stating that the sentence in this case was the result of a plea bargain and that appellant has no right to appeal. Accordingly, the trial court=s certification is supported by the documents currently before the Court. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Here, appellant had no right of appeal because he was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2). We conclude that appellant does not have the right to appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court's certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Chavez v. State, Nos. PD 1381 04 and PD 1382 04, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 120, at *9 *10 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 25, 2006) (a court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2 (a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action). Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 30th day of March, 2006.