Edward Lee Miller a/k/a Edward Malone v. The State of Texas Appeal from 213th District Court of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-18-00467-CR ___________________________ EDWARD LEE MILLER A/K/A EDWARD MALONE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1546174R Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION In accordance with a plea bargain between the State and Edward Lee Miller, also known as Edward Malone, the trial court convicted Miller of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and imposed a sentence confining him for five years. Miller filed a pro se notice of appeal. The trial court initially signed an inaccurate certification that did not indicate Miller had entered into a plea bargain but eventually signed an amended certification stating that Miller had entered into a plea bargain and had “NO right of appeal.” We notified Miller and his attorney of the trial court’s amended certification and informed Miller that unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. 25.2(d), 44.3. Miller’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw. Although Miller filed a pro se response, the response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Specifically, appellant waived any pretrial motions as part of his plea bargain agreement. See Hall v. State, Nos. 02-17-00311–314-CR, 2017 WL 6615888, at *1 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth Dec. 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s amended certification, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), (d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(a)(4), 48.4; Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (requiring appointed 2 counsel to inform an appellant of the right to file a petition for discretionary review). We also deny Miller’s pro se motions as moot. Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: March 14, 2019 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.
