Robert Lane Marsh v. State ( 2012 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-12-00258-CR & 04-12-00259-CR
Robert Lane MARSH,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2009-CR-5812 & 2009-CR-5814
Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2012
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Robert Lane Marsh pled nolo contendere to the
offense of placing a serial number on a vehicle with intent to change its identity in trial court
cause numbers 2009-CR-5812 and 2009-CR-5814. In accordance with the terms of his plea-
bargain agreement, Marsh was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in each cause number,
said sentences to run concurrently. On January 26, 2012, the trial court signed a certification of
defendant’s right to appeal in each cause number, stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the
04-12-00258-CR & 04-12-00259-CR
defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Marsh filed a notice of
appeal in each cause number, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certifications and notices of
appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s records, which include the trial court’s Rule
25.2(a)(2) certifications, have been filed. See id. 25.2(d).
“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 records, which contain written plea bargains,
establish 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 records do not include a
written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor do they indicate that the trial court gave
Marsh permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certifications, therefore, appear to
accurately reflect that these are plea-bargain cases and that Marsh 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 Marsh that these appeals would be dismissed pursuant to Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless amended trial court certifications showing that
Marsh had the right to appeal were made part of the appellate records. 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
amended trial court certifications have been filed. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed
pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-