Harry Lewis Scott 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. 04-18-00615-CR Harry Lewis SCOTT, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CR7403 Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 3, 2018 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). 04-18-00615-CR On September 13, 2018, 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 is made part of the appellate record by October 15, 2018. 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 September 18, 2018, Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a response stating that counsel had reviewed the record, and counsel conceded that this court has no choice but to dismiss this appeal. Considering 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.