Freddy Earl Perryman v. State ( 2014 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00219-CR
Freddy Earl PERRYMAN,
Appellant
v.
The State of
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012CR9136
Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 14, 2014
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Freddy Perryman pled nolo contendere to sexual
assault of a child and was sentenced to twelve years in prison in accordance with the terms of his
plea-bargain agreement. On January 28, 2014, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s
right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”
See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Perryman filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent
copies of the certification and the notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record,
which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d).
04-14-00219-CR
“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised
by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to
appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the
punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor
and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed
and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave Perryman permission to
appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a
plea-bargain case and that Perryman does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal
“if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the
record.” Id. 25.2(d).
We, therefore, warned Perryman that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that
Perryman had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d),
37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended
trial court certification has been filed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-