Denise Rita Sipple v. State of Texas--Appeal from Co Crim Ct at Law No 13 of Harris County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-00-00233-CR

DENISE RITA SIPPLE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Criminal Court at Law No. 13

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court # 0981972

O P I N I O N

Denise Rita Sipple seeks to appeal a pretrial suppression ruling following her plea-bargained conviction for driving while intoxicated. However, Sipple executed a waiver of appeal in connection with the entry of her guilty plea on the same day the court denied the suppression motion.

Sipple, her attorney, the prosecutor, and the judge signed a plea memorandum in which Sipple entered her guilty plea and waived her right to a jury trial, her right to appeal, and numerous other rights traditionally waived in the course of a plea bargain proceeding. In this memorandum, Sipple s counsel stated, I have consulted with the defendant whom I have found to be competent and to whom I have fully explained all of the matters contained in this instrument. In accepting Sipple s plea, the trial judge stated in the memorandum, The Court finds that the defendant is competent and that the plea was entered only after the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to a trial by jury and all other rights set out above.

[A] valid waiver of appeal, whether negotiated or non-negotiated, will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court. Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). A waiver of appeal is considered valid if it was made voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly. Id. Everything in the record demonstrates that Sipple s waiver of appeal was valid when made. The mere fact that Sipple later filed a notice of appeal expressing a desire to obtain review of the trial court s pretrial suppression ruling does not invalidate the waiver. Id. The trial court has not granted Sipple permission to appeal. Cf. Willis v. State, 121 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Monreal, 99 S.W.3d at 623.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 3, 2004

Publish

[CR25]