Danzel Rashad Warren v. The State of Texas Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-14-00340-CR NO. 12-14-00341-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS DANZEL RASHAD WARREN, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant, Danzel Rashad Warren, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in two separate cause numbers and was sentenced to twenty-five years of imprisonment on each charge. Appellant now attempts to appeal the conviction in each cause number, but the trial court has certified in each appeal that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has no right of appeal[.]” Each certification is signed by the trial court, Appellant, and Appellant’s counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) limits a defendant’s right to appeal in a plea bargain case when he pleads guilty and his punishment does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Under those circumstances, the defendant may appeal only (1) matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or (2) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. Id. Here, the trial court sentenced Appellant in each case in accordance with the agreed recommendation by the State. The trial court did not give Appellant permission to appeal, and Appellant did not file any pretrial motions. Therefore, we conclude that the certification of the right of appeal filed by the trial court in each appeal is supported by the record and that Appellant has no right to appeal because he was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals “without further action.” See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Opinion delivered January 30, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JANUARY 30, 2015 NO. 12-14-00340-CR DANZEL RASHAD WARREN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1136-14) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JANUARY 30, 2015 NO. 12-14-00341-CR DANZEL RASHAD WARREN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.114-1137-14) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, 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.
