Gregory A. Woodfork v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 177th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 31, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NOS. 01-10-00354-CR 01-10-00355-CR GREGORY A. WOODFORK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1244251 & 1244252 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Gregory A. Woodfork pleaded guilty to two offenses for burglary, based on plea bargains and agreed recommendations on punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1) (Vernon 2003). Woodfork both waived his right to appeal and pleaded true in each offense to prior felony convictions for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and possession of a controlled substance. The clerk s records do not include any matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Following the agreed recommendations, the trial court assessed punishment for each burglary offense at two years in prison, both sentences to run concurrently. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33, 12.42(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The trial court certified that both cases are plea-bargain cases and that Woodfork has no right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Woodfork filed timely pro se notices of appeal. The trial court appointed appellate counsel, who filed Anders briefs. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). In the Anders briefs, Woodfork s appointed counsel asserts any appeals would be wholly frivolous because this Court has no jurisdiction to hear them and there are no arguable grounds for appeal on the merits. We conclude that the trial court s certifications that Woodfork has no right of appeal, as shown on the forms entitled Trial Court s Certification of Right of Appeal, are supported by the clerk s records that show he entered into agreed plea bargains with the State. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Because Woodfork has no right of appeal, we must dismiss these appeals without further action. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 2 Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Alcala, and Massengale. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3
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.
