Matthew David Leal v. The State of Texas Appeal from 186th District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBERS 13-19-00023-CR AND 13-19-00024-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG MATTHEW DAVID LEAL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 186th District Court of Bexar County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion Chief Justice Contreras Appellant, Matthew David Leal, attempts to appeal his convictions for robbery and aggravated robbery.1 The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and 1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). the defendant has NO right of appeal,” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). On January 15, 2019, 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 certification. On April 17, 2019, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. 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. DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 25th day of April, 2019. 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.
