Mauricio Espinoza v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-06-00236-CR

Mauricio ESPINOZA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-5860

Honorable Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan , Justice

Karen Angelini , Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion , Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 12, 2006

DISMISSED

Mauricio Espinoza pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating that this "is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal." SeeTex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Espinoza timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk's record, which includes the trial court's Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

"In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal." Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk's record, which contains a written plea bargain agreement, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk's record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate the trial court gave Espinoza permission to appeal. The trial court's certification therefore appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea bargain case and Espinoza does not have a right to appeal. This court must dismiss an appeal "if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record." Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

On May 22, 2006, we gave Espinoza notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the appellate record by June 21, 2006. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). An amended certification showing Espinoza has the right to appeal has not been filed. We therefore dismiss this appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish