Cesar Rafael Zuniga 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. 04-18-00626-CR Cesar Rafael ZUNIGA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CR7824 Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 17, 2018 DISMISSED The clerk’s record has been filed in this case. The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s Rule 25.2 certification, which does not show appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2. When the trial court clerk first forwarded appellant’s notice of appeal and the trial court’s Rule 25.2 certification, we issued an order notifying appellant that this appeal would be dismissed within 30 days of the order if two conditions were met: (1) a certification or amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record; and (2) the trial court’s certification is not defective. See id. R. 25.2(d) (requiring us to dismiss a criminal appeal 04-18-00626-CR if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record). Because no amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal has been made part of the appellate record, the only issue is whether the trial court’s certification is defective in the notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals must determine whether the certification is defective). The trial court’s certification states this is a plea bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. See R. 25.2(a); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant in the plea bargain agreement. See R. 25.2(a). The clerk’s record also does not show the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal or contain any matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. See id. Appellant’s counsel has not represented to this court that the trial court’s certification is defective in the notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. We conclude the trial court’s certification is not defective in its notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d). 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.
