Juan Pablo Valdez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00688-CR

Juan Pablo VALDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-1291

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 16, 2005

DISMISSED

Defendant Juan Pablo Valdez pled guilty to robbery, and was sentenced within the terms of a plea bargain. Defendant timely filed a general notice of appeal. The trial court s Certification of Defendant s Right of Appeal states: the defendant has waived the right of appeal and that this is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk s record contains a written plea bargain and a written waiver of appeal, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by defendant; therefore, the trial court s certification accurately reflects that defendant waived his right to appeal and that defendant s case is a plea bargain case and defendant does not have a right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Rule 25.2(d) provides, The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on October 27, 2005, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, order); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); 37.1.

On November 3, 2005, appellant s counsel filed a response to our show cause order, in which counsel stated it was her professional opinion that defendant will be unable to establish that he has a right to appeal and will not be able to furnish an amended trial court certification . . . . Relying on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel concludes it is her professional opinion that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Relying on High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel states she has informed defendant of further rights regarding his appeal. The requirements of Anders and High do not apply in this case. Because the merits of an appeal are not considered under Rule 25.2(d), we do not address whether an appeal is frivolous.

Because no amended trial court certification has been filed, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH