David Shelly v. The State Of Texas Appeal from 94th District Court of Nueces County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBERS 13-15-00577-CR, 13-15-00578-CR, 13-15-00579-CR, 13-15-00580-CR, AND 13-15-00581-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG DAVID SHELLY A/K/A DAVID WAYNE SHELLY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, David Shelly a/k/a David Wayne Shelly, attempts to appeal convictions for aggravated robbery, possession of a controlled substance, fraudulent use or possession of identifying information, assault, and forgery. The trial court has certified in these cases that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). On February 23, 2016, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s certifications and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certifications. Appellant’s counsel did not file a response and this Court abated these cases on April 20, 2016. On June 10, 2016, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Accordingly, these appeals are REINSTATED. Counsel’s response does not establish that the certifications currently on file with this Court are incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, these appeals are DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 23rd day of June, 2016. 2

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.