Dontre La Ron Nestle v. The State of Texas Appeal from 144th 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. 04-24-00228-CR Dontre La Ron NESTLE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR04333 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 20, 2024 DISMISSED Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Dontre La Ron Nestle pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to twenty years in prison in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On July 16, 2024, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). 04-24-00228-CR “In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Nestle. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. Thus, the trial court’s certification appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and that Nestle does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d). We informed Nestle that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that Nestle had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 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.
