ARTURO OCHOA GONZALES v. THE STATE OF TEXAS--Appeal from 105th District Court of Nueces County

Annotate this Case
NUMBER 13-07-523-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

 

ARTURO OCHOA GONZALES, Appellant,

 
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

 
On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, ARTURO OCHOA GONZALES, attempts to appeal a conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle. The trial court has certified that "the defendant has waived the right of appeal." See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On August 29, 2007, this Court notified appellant's counsel of the trial court's certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel's findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification.

On September 24, 2007, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel's response fails to establish either that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a 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. 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Do not publish.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 11th day of October, 2007.

 

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.