Beatriz Noyola-Navarro v. The State of Texas Appeal from County Court at Law No 5 of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-15-00160-CR ___________________ BEATRIZ NOYOLA-NAVARRO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-286349 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Beatriz Noyola-Navarro appeals her conviction for driving while intoxicated, a class B misdemeanor. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a), (b) (West Supp. 2016).1 Before trial, Noyola-Navarro filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming that no probable cause existed to warrant the police stopping her car, which resulted in her arrest for driving while intoxicated. The trial court denied 1 We cite the current version of the Texas Penal Code, as any amendments to the provisions at issue do not affect the outcome of this appeal. 1 Noyola-Navarro’s motion to suppress. Based on her plea agreement with the State, the trial court, immediately after ruling on the motion to suppress, proceeded to hear Noyola-Navarro’s plea. In accordance with Noyola-Navarro’s plea-bargain agreement with the State, she pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, and the court sentenced her to three days in the Montgomery County Jail, imposed a $1,000 fine, and ordered that Noyola-Navarro pay court costs. Subsequently, the trial court certified that Noyola-Navarro’s case was a plea-bargain case and gave NoyolaNavarro the right to appeal only as to matters “raised by written motion filed and rule[d] on before trial and not withdrawn or waived[.]” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2006); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record includes a copy of the trial court’s certification regarding Noyola-Navarro’s right to appeal. On appeal, Noyola-Navarro presents two issues challenging the voluntariness of her plea and the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction. However, in her appeal, Noyola-Navarro does not raise any issues that argue the trial court should have granted her motion to suppress. Significantly, the trial court’s certification regarding Noyola-Navarro’s right to appeal did not allow Noyola-Navarro to raise issues beyond the scope of the matters the trial court certified for appeal, and the two issues that Noyola-Navarro argues in her brief are 2 wholly unrelated to her motion to suppress, which was the only pretrial motion that she filed. Section 44.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes trial courts to restrict a defendant’s right to appeal to those matters raised in pretrial motions on which the defendant secures a ruling. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02. Because the trial court did not authorize Noyola-Navarro to appeal the matters she challenges in the two issues she raises in her brief and she did not secure a ruling prior to trial on them, the two issues on which she seeks our review were not properly preserved for review. See Goyzueta v. State, 266 S.W.3d 126, 136 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).We overrule issues one and two, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. ______________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on February 1, 2016 Opinion Delivered November 2, 2016 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 3
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.
