Ruben D. Marquez v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-16-00276-CR
    RUBEN D. MARQUEZ                                                    APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                       STATE
    ----------
    FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
    TRIAL COURT NO. 1357251R
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    ----------
    Appellant Ruben D. Marquez attempts to appeal from his conviction for the
    third-degree felony of accident involving serious bodily injury. See Tex. Transp.
    Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2015).         Marquez pleaded guilty
    pursuant to a plea bargain, and in accordance with the plea bargain, the trial
    court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. The trial court’s certification of
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    his right to appeal states 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 July 19, 2016, we notified Marquez that this appeal could be dismissed
    based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party desiring to continue
    the appeal filed a response on or before July 25, 2016, showing grounds for
    continuing the appeal.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. No response has
    been filed.
    In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this
    appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
    PER CURIAM
    PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: August 18, 2016
    2
    That same day, we also notified Marquez that it appeared we lacked
    jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed.
    See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We also noted in the letter that Marquez’s motion
    for shock probation was granted by the trial court after he filed his notice of
    appeal and asked Marquez to notify this court if he wished to continue this
    appeal and, if so, to specify the grounds for doing so. See Pippin v. State, 
    271 S.W.3d 861
    , 863–64 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.) (dismissing for want of
    jurisdiction appeal of order granting shock probation in state-jail felony case).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-16-00276-CR

Filed Date: 8/18/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/22/2016