Jose Luis Garcia III v. State ( 2013 )

Opinion issued June 18, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00134-CR
NO. 01-13-00135-CR
———————————
JOSE LUIS GARCIA III, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1318638 and 1366267
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In trial court cause number 1318638, appellant, Jose Luis Garcia III, pleaded
guilty to the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely,
methamphetamine, weighing more than 1 gram and less than 4 grams, and pleaded
true to a felony enhancement. In trial court cause number 1366267, appellant
pleaded guilty to the felony offense of unlawful possession of a firearm, and
pleaded true to a felony enhancement. In each cause number, the trial court found
appellant guilty, found the enhancement true, and, in accordance with appellant’s
plea agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to confinement for three years,
with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a notice
of appeal in each cause. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
The trial court must enter a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal
each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(a)(2). In a plea-bargain case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that
were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after getting the
trial court’s permission to appeal. Id. If a certification showing that the defendant
has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record, we must dismiss the
appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
The clerk’s record filed in each appeal reflects that the trial court certified
that the case is a plea-bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record in each case supports the trial
court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Further, in each case, the record does not reflect that the trial court ruled
adversely to appellant on any matters raised by written motion filed and ruled on
2
before trial, and appellant did not get the trial court’s permission to appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); Barcenas v. State, 137 S.W.3d 865, 866 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
Because appellant does not have a right of appeal, we must dismiss the
appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain
whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2),
must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. Appellant’s
pro se motion to dismiss the appeals, which is not signed by counsel, is dismissed
as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Any other pending motions are dismissed as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3