Dustin Rangel Arriozola v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued June 9, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00313-CR, NO. 01-11-00314-CR ____________ DUSTIN RANGEL ARRIOZOLA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 208th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1129009 and 1129010 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Dustin Rangel Arriozola, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault of a family member. The trial court found appellant guilty, and, in accordance with the terms of appellant s plea agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to 10 years confinement. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeals. 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 certifications are included in the records on appeal. See id. The trial court s certifications state these are plea bargain cases 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. The records support the trial court s certifications. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeals. 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 appeals for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Brown. Do not publish.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.
