Ryan William Lane v. The State of Texas Appeal from 228th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 8, 2023 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00338-CR ——————————— RYAN WILLIAM LANE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1625313 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ryan William Lane, attempts to appeal the judgment in the trial court convicting him of the first-degree felony offense of solicitation to commit capital murder, and sentencing him to twenty years’ confinement. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Background Lane pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of soliciting capital murder. Lane signed a “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession” stating that he entered his guilty plea without an agreed punishment recommendation and requested that the trial court set his punishment. In the document, Lane also stated that “Further, in exchange for the state giving up their right to trial, I agree to waive any right of appeal which I may have.” The trial court entered a judgment convicting Lane of the charged offense and sentenced Lane to twenty years’ confinement. The judgment provides that Lane waived his right to appeal and no permission to appeal has been granted. The trial court’s certification of defendant’s right to appeal similarly provides that “The defendant has waived the right of appeal.” Lane subsequently filed a notice of appeal. Discussion 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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal and states that Lane waived his right 2 of appeal. As discussed below, the record supports the trial court’s certification that Lane waived his right to appeal. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 615. A valid waiver of appeal—one made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently—prevents a defendant from appealing without the trial court’s consent. See Carson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 489, 492–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.14(a) (“The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense may waive any rights secured him by law....”). “[A] defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his entire appeal as a part of a plea, even when sentencing is not agreed upon, where consideration is given by the State for that waiver.” Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d at 699. The “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession” signed by Lane states that “in exchange for the state giving up their right to trial, I agree to waive any right of appeal which I may have.” More precisely, Lane waived his right to appeal in exchange for the State’s consenting to Lane’s waiver of his right to jury trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.13(a) (“The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense other than a capital felony case in which the [S]tate notifies the court and the defendant that it will seek the death penalty shall have the right, upon entering a plea, to waive the right of trial by jury, conditioned, however, that, except as provided by Article 27.19, the waiver must be 3 made in person by the defendant in writing in open court with the consent and approval of the court, and the attorney representing the [S]tate.”) (emphasis added). By providing the required consent for Lane to waive his right to a jury trial, the State gave consideration for Lane’s waiver of his right to appeal. See Carson, 559 S.W.3d at 492–96; Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d at 696–99. Because the trial court’s certification that Lane waived his right of appeal is supported by the record and the trial court has not given permission to appeal, Lane has no right of appeal. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4
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.
