Jokobai Zanta Linton v. The State of Texas Appeal from 240th District Court of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued November 13, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00570-CR ——————————— JOKOBAI ZANTA LINTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 12-DCR-061313 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jokobai Zanta Linton, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of burglary of a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02 (West 2011). The trial court found appellant guilty of the charge, and, in accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain agreements with the State, sentenced appellant to confinement for 10 years. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal 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. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006); 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). The records support the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Further, Linton signed a waiver of his right to appeal, which is also part of the record. Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss the 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. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Do not publish.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.
