Michael Kay Pullen v. State ( 2009 )

                                               COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                FORT WORTH

                                        NO. 2-09-289-CR

MICHAEL KAY PULLEN                                                         APPELLANT

                                                   V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                                STATE

                                              ------------

              FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

                                              ------------

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION^[1]

                                              ------------

On April 21, 2009, the trial court entered a judgment revoking Appellant Michael Kay Pullen=s community supervision for the offense of possession of a controlled substance under one gram and sentencing him to twenty months= confinement in a state jail.  On May 11, 2009, Pullen filed a AMotion for New Trial or, Notice of Appeal.@ On August 20, 2009, Pullen filed a pro se ANotice of Appeal to Motion for Time Credit.@

On September 8, 2009, we notified Pullen that the trial court=s certification of his right to appeal had been filed under the date of August 27, 2009;^[2] that the certification states this is a plea bargain case and he has no right of appeal; that the certification states he has waived the right of appeal; and that the appeal may be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal with the court on or before September 18, 2009. Pullen filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.^[3]  Therefore, in accordance with the trial court=s certification, we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  MEIER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  October 29, 2009

---

^[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

^[2]See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

^[3]To the extent Pullen contends that he is entitled to a greater back-time credit than what is reflected in the judgment, and to the extent his plea agreement with the State did not address whether he was to receive back-time credit or how much, Pullen=s remedy may be to file a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in the trial court.  See In re Gomez, 268 S.W.3d 262, 264B66 (Tex. App.CAustin 2008, no pet.); see also Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 928B29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).