George Edward Purdy v. State ( 2013 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-13-00658-CR, 04-13-00659-CR & 04-13-00660-CR
George Edward PURDY,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 4482, 4958 & 4959
Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2013
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
certifications accurately reflect that the underlying cases are plea-bargain cases. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 25.2(a)(2).
04-13-00658-CR, 04-13-00659-CR & 04-13-00660-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 October 3, 2013, 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 November 4, 2013. 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.). No response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court
certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to
dismiss these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-