Christopher Damone Davis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County

Annotate this Case

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

______________________________

 

No. 06-04-00037-CR

______________________________

 

CHRISTOPHER DAMONE DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 29009-B

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Christopher Damone Davis entered a plea of guilty, without a plea agreement, to the indictment charging him with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. // On January 20, 2004, the trial court rendered judgment against Davis and sentenced him to twenty-five years' confinement. On that same day, after sentencing, Davis signed a waiver of his right to file a motion for new trial and his right of appeal. The trial court's certification of Davis' right of appeal reflects such a waiver.

A criminal defendant is given the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2. A defendant in a noncapital felony case is also given the right to waive any right secured to him by law. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann art. 1.14 (Vernon Supp. 2004). Since Davis, represented by appointed counsel, signed the waiver of his right of appeal after the trial court pronounced judgment and sentence against him, we treat this as a valid waiver of Davis' right of appeal. // See Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 10 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2002, no pet.). Davis' subsequent notice of appeal does not withdraw or affect his prior waiver. See id.; Ex parte Tabor, 565 S.W.2d 945, 946 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

We are without jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, we dismiss Davis' appeal.

 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

 

Date Submitted: March 9, 2004

Date Decided: March 10, 2004

 

Do Not Publish

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.