Ruben Vasquez v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-18-00275-CR RUBEN VASQUEZ APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1528706D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------Proceeding pro se, Ruben Vasquez attempts to appeal from his state-jailfelony conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.07 (West 2016). Vazquez pleaded guilty to the offense pursuant to a plea bargain, and in accordance with the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. him to six months in state jail. 2 Consistent with that plea, the “Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Based on the certification, we notified Vasquez and his court-appointed attorney that his appeal would be dismissed unless, within ten days, he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. Ten days have passed, but no response has been filed. In his notice of appeal, Vasquez acknowledges that he pleaded guilty but claims that he wants to appeal matters “raised by written pretrial motions not ruled upon prior to the plea.” But in a plea-bargain case, a defendant can appeal only “those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial” or “after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (emphasis added). The trial-court clerk has informed us that Vasquez filed over 40 pro se motions in the trial court but that the trial court did not rule on any of them before trial. And the trial court did not give Vasquez permission to appeal. Vasquez therefore has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in conformity with the trial court’s certification. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 2 As part of the agreement, the State also agreed to waive the enhancement allegations included in the indictment. 2 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Along with the appeal, we dismiss all pending motions. 3 /s/ Elizabeth Kerr ELIZABETH KERR JUSTICE PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 16, 2018 3 On June 12, 2018, Vasquez filed a “Motion for Credit on Sentence” and a “Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order” in this court. Because we have no authority to do anything but dismiss this appeal, we must dismiss these motions as well. See Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680. 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.
