John Gamble v. The State of TexasAppeal from 7th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-13-00331-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS JOHN GAMBLE, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine in the amount of less than one gram, in a drug free zone. He also pleaded true to allegations that he had been finally convicted of two prior felony offenses. In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for thirty years. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. We have received the trial court's certification showing that this is a plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The certification is signed by Appellant and his trial counsel. The clerk s record supports the trial court s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction of the appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered February 12, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) Accordingly, the appeal is COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 12, 2014 NO. 12-13-00331-CR JOHN GAMBLE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1710-12) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
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.
