Chad Eugene McMurtrey v. State ( 2017 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00031-CR
CHAD EUGENE MCMURTREY APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1452242D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Chad Eugene McMurtrey attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
judgment based on his plea bargain with the State. We dismiss this appeal.
Appellant pled guilty and judicially confessed to possessing less than a
gram of a controlled substance—methamphetamine, a state jail felony. See Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(6) (providing methamphetamine is a
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Penalty Group 1 substance), .115 (providing possession of a Penalty Group
1 substance is a state jail felony if the amount possessed, including adulterants
or dilutants, weighs less than a gram) (West 2010). Appellant waived many
rights, including his right to appeal, and he admitted that he was “mentally
competent”; that his guilty plea was “knowingly, freely, and voluntarily entered”;
and that “[n]o one . . . threatened, coerced, forced, persuaded or promised [him]
anything in exchange for [his] plea.” His trial counsel signed a statement that he
was satisfied that Appellant was “legally competent.”
In exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea and waivers, the State
recommended a sentence of one year’s confinement in a state jail facility and a
waiver of the sentencing enhancement allegation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§§ 12.35(a)–(b) (providing that the range of confinement for a state jail felony is
180 days to two years and the sentence may include a fine up to $10,000),
.425(a) (providing a defendant convicted of a state jail felony shall be punished
for a third-degree felony upon a showing that he has two prior state jail felony
convictions) (West Supp. 2016).
The trial court found Appellant “mentally competent” and followed the
terms of the bargain. The trial court’s certification of appeal provides that this is a
plea-bargained case and Appellant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
25.2(a)(2), (d). Accordingly, we informed Appellant by letter that this appeal was
subject to dismissal based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party
desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing
2
the appeal.
In his response, Appellant claims that
 he was coerced into pleading guilty;
 his civil rights were violated; and
 he was exploited and abused because of his alleged mental
health issues.
When the trial court follows a plea bargain, the defendant may appeal only (1)
those issues that were raised in written motions filed and disposed of before trial
or (2) with the trial court’s permission. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Chavez v.
State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Neither circumstance is
present here.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2),
43.2(f); Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and WALKER, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 27, 2017
3