Shaquitta Deanna Horton v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-18-00302-CR NO. 02-18-00303-CR SHAQUITTA DEANNA HORTON APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. 1406350D, 1406619D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------Shaquitta Deanna Horton has filed pro se notices of appeal from the trial court’s judgments adjudicating her guilty of credit-card abuse and fraudulent use or possession of fewer than five items of identifying information. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 32.31, 32.51 (West 2016). In each case, the trial court sentenced her to 14 months’ confinement (with the sentences to run concurrently) pursuant 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. to an agreement in which Horton pleaded true to one of the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt in exchange for the State’s 14-month punishment recommendation. Horton signed written plea admonishments in each case that included a waiver of the right of appeal. The trial court’s certifications of Horton’s right to appeal in each case state that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Based on the certifications, we notified Horton through her courtappointed attorney that her appeals would be dismissed unless, within ten days, she or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing them. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. More than ten days have passed, and we have received no response. Rule 25.2(a)(2) does not restrict a defendant’s right of appeal when she pleads true to one or more allegations in a motion to adjudicate. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 911–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (concluding that a case in which a defendant pleads true to allegations in a motion to adjudicate is not a plea-bargain case under rule 25.2(a)(2)); see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“[Rule 25.2(a)(2)] refers only to plea bargains with regard to guilty pleas, not pleas of true on revocation motions.”). But if, as here, a defendant pleads true and signs a waiver of the right of appeal in exchange for the State’s punishment recommendation––and the trial court follows the recommendation––the waiver is 2 binding. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Jackson v. State, 168 S.W.3d 239, 242–43 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); cf. Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794, 797–98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining that when defendant waives right of appeal in exchange for recommended sentence that trial court subsequently follows, “[a]ny possible source of error” during sentencing is removed). Because Horton waived her right to appeal the trial court’s adjudication judgments, we dismiss her appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Jackson, 168 S.W.3d at 243; see also Salazar v. State, No. 02-18-00004-CR, 2018 WL 1324487, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 15, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). /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
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.
