Moises Trujillo v. The State of Texas Appeal from 227th 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. 04-16-00303-CR Moises TRUJILLO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR4416 Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 15, 2016 DISMISSED The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “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; Rule 25.2(a)(2) applies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). This court must dismiss this appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” Id. R. 25.2(d); see Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 04-16-00303-CR On May 23, 2016, 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 June 22, 2016. 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 June 1, 2016, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel from the Bexar County Public Defender’s Office filed a response stating that counsel had reviewed the record, and counsel conceded that this court must dismiss this appeal. Given Rule 25.2(d)’s requirements, the record, and Appellant’s response, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.