Golden Heather Hartman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 230th District Court of Harris County

Opinion issued August 23, 2007

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-06-01170-CR

____________

GOLDEN HEATHER HARTMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1091654

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 7, 2006, appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. Appellant signed under oath a written waiver of constitutional rights, agreement to stipulate to evidence, and judicial confession. The document provided, among other things, as follows:

I intend to enter a plea of guilty and the prosecutor will recommend that my punishment should be set at 3 years deferred adjudication, a fine of $500 and the Judge sets all conditions of probation and I agree to that recommendation. . . . Further, I waive any right of appeal which I may have should the court accept the foregoing plea bargain agreement between myself and the prosecutor.

The document was also signed by appellant's counsel, the prosecutor and the trial court.

The trial court proceeded to defer a finding of guilt and, following the plea agreement, placed appellant on community supervision for a period of 3 years. Despite having waived the right to appeal, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

There is nothing in the record indicating that appellant's waiver of his right to appeal was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. There is also nothing indicating that the trial court gave his consent for an appeal. We also note that the trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and appellant has no right of appeal.

A valid waiver of the right to appeal will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court. Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Buck v. State, 45 S.W.3d 275, 278 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); cf. Alzarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321, 323-24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (holding the record directly contradicted and rebutted any presumption raised by the form waiver with numerous references to appeal from ruling on pretrial motion and trial court gave consent for appeal).

Because the record in this case reflects that appellant's waiver of the right to appeal was valid and that the trial court did not consent to an appeal, we order the appeal dismissed.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Keyes, and Higley.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).