Ricardo Ruiz v. The State of Texas Appeal from 175th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00822-CR Ricardo RUIZ, Appellant v. The STATE of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR0550 Honorable Mary D. Román, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 17, 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). 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 04-14-00822-CR of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On December 10, 2014, we ordered that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by January 5, 2014. 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.). Appellant’s counsel has filed a written response stating that counsel has reviewed the record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” As a result, counsel states he “can find no reason to seek an amended certification from the trial court.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
