Jason David Kimball 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. 04-19-00577-CR Jason David KIMBALL, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR1497B Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 18, 2019 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 04-19-00577-CR of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On August 30, 2019, 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 September 19, 2019. 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 “can find no certified right of appeal for appellant.” As a result, counsel concedes this court must “dismiss the instant attempted appeal.” 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 PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH -2-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.
