Derek Michael Clark v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued June 25, 2015
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-14-00759-CR
    ———————————
    DEREK MICHAEL CLARK, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 176th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 1392801
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant, Michael Derek Clark, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of
    possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine) weighing more
    than 4 grams and less than 200 grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §
    481.112(a) & (d) (West 2010). The trial court found appellant guilty and, in
    accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State,
    sentenced appellant to five years’ confinement. Appellant, acting pro se, filed a
    notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
    In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were
    raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial
    court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art 44.02 (West 2006);
    TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing
    that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
    Here, the trial court’s certification included in the record on appeal states
    that this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right of appeal. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’s certification. See
    Dears v. State, 
    154 S.W.3d 610
    , 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant
    has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 
    183 S.W.3d 675
    , 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having
    jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to
    appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action,
    regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any
    pending motions as moot.
    2
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
    Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-14-00759-CR

Filed Date: 6/29/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/29/2015