Haven Lanier Hodges v. The State of Texas Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-15-00313-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS HAVEN LANIER HODGES, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIALDISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, a first degree felony. In accordance with the terms of Appellant’s plea agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for fifteen 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 also states that Appellant waived her right to appeal. The certification is signed by Appellant and her 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. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Opinion delivered December 30, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT DECEMBER 30, 2015 NO. 12-15-00313-CR HAVEN LANIER HODGES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1228-15) 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., 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.