Andrew Harmason v. The State of Texas Appeal from 337th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued January 25, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00733-CR ——————————— ANDREW HARMASON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 337th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1509927 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Andrew Harmason pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of theft with an agreement from the State for a cap on sentencing of 25 years. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 31.03(e)(6). In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court signed a judgment of conviction on September 22, 2017, imposing a sentence of 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. An agreement placing a cap on punishment is a plea bargain for purposes of Rule 25.2(a)(2). See Wilson v. State, 264 S.W.3d 104, 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Waters v. State, 124 S.W.3d 825, 826–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). Because the record shows that appellant agreed to the State’s recommendation of a cap of 25 years on sentencing, this is a plea bargain under Rule 25.2(a)(2) and appellant has no right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2) Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. 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 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.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. 2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Caughey. Do not publish.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.
