Daniel Martinez a/k/a Daniel Ramirez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 290th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION Nos. 04-15-00177-CR & 04-15-00178-CR Daniel MARTINEZ a/k/a Daniel Ramirez, Appellant v. The The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2014CR2985 & 2014CR2986 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 13, 2015 DISMISSED The trial court’s certification in each of these appeals states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record for each appeal 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 in each appeal accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 04-15-00177-CR & 04-15-00178-CR 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). On April 9, 2015, we ordered that these appeals 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 in each appeal by May 7, 2015. 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 reviewed the record and “it does appear that these appeals should be dismissed under Rule 25.2.” 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 these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
