Jose Romo-Rodriguez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00629-CR
Jose ROMO RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2006-CR-8822C
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

 

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

 

Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2007

 

DISMISSED

Jose Romo Rodriguez pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. As part of the plea bargain, Romo Rodriguez signed a waiver of his right to appeal. 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." See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Romo Rodriguez timely filed a notice of appeal. The clerk's record, which includes the trial court's Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

The clerk's record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant and that the trial court denied permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). After reviewing the clerk's record, the trial court's certification therefore appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea bargain case and Romo Rodriguez does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk's record to determine whether trial court's certification is accurate). 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 October 1, 2007, we gave Romo Rodriguez 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 October 31, 2007. 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 Romo Rodriguez 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