Robert Eugene Ghering v. State ( 2019 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00482-CR
___________________________
ROBERT EUGENE GHERING, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 432nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1552129D
Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Gabriel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, the trial court found appellant Robert
Eugene Ghering guilty of the offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle and sentenced
him to the two-year term of confinement the prosecutor recommended and Ghering
agreed to. The trial court also completed a certification of Ghering’s right of appeal,
which Ghering signed, indicating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant
has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). Ghering has filed a
pro se notice of appeal.
We notified Ghering and his court-appointed trial counsel that we had
concerns regarding our jurisdiction over this appeal given the trial court’s certification.
We further said that we would dismiss this appeal unless we received a response
showing grounds to continue it. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. Ghering
filed a pro se response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. We
were then notified that after Ghering filed his pro se response, the trial court
appointed appellate counsel for him. Ghering’s appointed appellate counsel also
responded to our jurisdictional concerns, stating her opinion that “the trial court’s
certification was correct, that this is a plea-bargain case with no right of appeal, and
that there are no grounds for continuing this direct appeal.”
Rule of appellate procedure 25.2 limits a criminal defendant’s right of appeal in
a plea-bargain case to matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled upon
before trial or to cases in which the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to
2
appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Here, the trial court’s certification does not show
that Ghering obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal, and his pro se response
includes no indication that he intends to challenge a pretrial ruling on a written
motion filed and ruled on before trial. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex.
R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006).
/s/ Lee Gabriel
Lee Gabriel
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: March 14, 2019
3