Russell Davis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Bexar County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-09-00602-CR Russell DAVIS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the County Court at Law No 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 247819 The Honorable Micheal La Hood, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 27, 2010 DISMISSED On December 15, 2009, we notified Appellant that the trial court s certification in this appeal states that this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. Additionally, the clerk s record contained a written waiver signed by the appellant pursuant to which he entered a plea of no contest. The trial court s judgment also reflected that there was a plea bargain agreement, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court s 04-09-00602-CR certification accurately reflected that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We, therefore, ordered that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant caused an amended trial court certification to be filed by January 4, 2010, showing appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No response has been received by this court. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal in accordance with Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-

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.