Edward Lee Miller A/K/A Edward Malone v. State ( 2019 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00467-CR
___________________________
EDWARD LEE MILLER A/K/A EDWARD MALONE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 213th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1546174R
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In accordance with a plea bargain between the State and Edward Lee Miller,
also known as Edward Malone, the trial court convicted Miller of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon and imposed a sentence confining him for five years. Miller
filed a pro se notice of appeal. The trial court initially signed an inaccurate certification
that did not indicate Miller had entered into a plea bargain but eventually signed an
amended certification stating that Miller had entered into a plea bargain and had “NO
right of appeal.”
We notified Miller and his attorney of the trial court’s amended certification
and informed Miller that unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing
the appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. 25.2(d), 44.3. Miller’s attorney filed a
motion to withdraw.
Although Miller filed a pro se response, the response does not show grounds
for continuing the appeal. Specifically, appellant waived any pretrial motions as part of
his plea bargain agreement. See Hall v. State, Nos. 02-17-00311–314-CR, 2017 WL
6615888, at *1 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth Dec. 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s amended
certification, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), (d), 43.2(f); Chavez v.
State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(a)(4), 48.4;
Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (requiring appointed
2
counsel to inform an appellant of the right to file a petition for discretionary review).
We also deny Miller’s pro se motions as moot.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: March 14, 2019
3