Randy Joe Camp v. The State of Texas Appeal from 372nd 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. 02-19-00278-CR ___________________________ RANDY JOE CAMP, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 372nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1578449D Before Bassel, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Womack, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Randy Joe Camp attempts to appeal a judgment that was based on his plea bargain with the State. We dismiss this appeal. Appellant agreed to plead guilty to possession of methamphetamine of one gram or more in exchange for the State’s offer of a seven-year prison sentence and the State’s waiving the habitual-offender notice. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c). Appellant judicially confessed, admitted that the enhancement paragraph was true, and waived all pretrial motions and all rights of appeal. The trial court’s certification provides that the case is plea-bargained and that Appellant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Accordingly, on July 18, 2019, we informed Appellant by letter that his appeal would be subject to dismissal based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by July 29, 2019, showing grounds for continuing it. On August 1, 2019, Appellant filed a motion for extension concurrently with a “Motion for Permission to [F]ile Petition for Discretionary Review.” Appellant’s response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Rule 25.2(a) allows a plea-bargaining defendant to appeal only matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or only with the trial court’s permission. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant waived any pretrial motions as part of his bargain, and the trial court did not give him permission to appeal. Appellant therefore has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), (d). Further, this court has no authority 2 to do anything but dismiss the appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Thus, we dismiss this appeal in conformity with the trial court’s certification of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). Per Curiam Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered: August 15, 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.
