Charles Thornton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 248th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued March 3, 2011. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-01088-CR ____________ CHARLES THORNTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1275285 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Charles Thornton, pleaded guilty to the offense of felony theft and pleaded true to the allegations in two felony enhancement paragraphs. The trial court found appellant guilty, found the enhancements true, and, in accordance with the terms of appellant s plea agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to confinement for 5 years. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. In a plea-bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial court s permission to appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Here, the trial court s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. The trial court s certification states that this is a plea-bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant did not appeal any pre-trial matters, and the trial court did not give permission for appellant to appeal. See id. The record supports the trial court s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 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, regardless of the basis for the appeal. ). 2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, 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 Do not publish.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.
