Daniel Martinez A/K/A Daniel Ramirez v. State ( 2015 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-15-00177-CR & 04-15-00178-CR
Daniel MARTINEZ a/k/a Daniel Ramirez,
Appellant
v.
The
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2014CR2985 & 2014CR2986
Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 13, 2015
DISMISSED
The trial court’s certification in each of these appeals states that “this criminal case is a
plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record for each appeal
contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment
recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s
certification in each appeal accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
04-15-00177-CR & 04-15-00178-CR
Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be
dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part
of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On April 9, 2015, we ordered that these
appeals would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification
showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record in each
appeal by May 7, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d
610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003,
no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has filed a written response stating that counsel reviewed the record
and “it does appear that these appeals should be dismissed under Rule 25.2.” See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no
pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires
this court to dismiss these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-