Jesse Joe Salinas v. The State of TexasAppeal from 218th Judicial District Court of Karnes County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00066-CR Jesse Joe SALINAS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 12-11-00098-CRK Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2014 DISMISSED 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. The clerk s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court s certification accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 04-14-00066-CR Under Rule 25.2(d), this 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). On February 13, 2014, we notified Appellant that this appeal would be dismissed under Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that Appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by March 17, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, no pet.). On March 25, 2014, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss his court-appointed counsel and to grant his previous pro se motions this court earlier denied based on hybrid representation, but he did not file an amended trial court certification. Appellant s motions are denied. Absent an amended trial court certification showing that Appellant has the right of appeal, Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613; Daniels, 110 S.W.3d at 176. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
