Jose Benicio Simental v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-21-00136-CR
________________________
JOSE BENICIO SIMENTAL, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 222nd District Court
Oldham County, Texas
Trial Court No. OCR-20C-023; Honorable Roland Saul, Presiding
August 10, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ.
Pending before this court is a motion filed by Appellant, Jose Benicio Simental, to
allow his appeal to proceed for the limited purpose of resolving the assessment of $2,880
for court-appointed attorney’s fees. For the reasons expressed herein, the motion is
rendered moot and we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, as there are no grounds
on which to continue the appeal.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was convicted of evading arrest or
detention with a vehicle.1 Per his plea agreement, Appellant is to serve fifteen months
confinement in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. Despite being convicted pursuant to a plea agreement, and despite having
waived his rights of appeal, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. As per the
agreement, the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal indicates
Appellant has no right of appeal and that he waived the right of appeal. The certification
prompted a letter from the clerk of this court advising Appellant’s court-appointed counsel
that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless an amended certification showing a right
of appeal was provided or he demonstrated other grounds for continuing the appeal.
Counsel responded with a motion to continue the appeal for the limited purpose of
challenging the assessment of court-appointed attorney’s fees.
On July 30, 2021, Appellant notified this court that the trial court entered an Order
Granting Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc deleting the assessment of $2,880 for court-appointed
attorney’s fees from the original judgment. He also provided a copy of that judgment.
Consequently, Appellant’s motion to continue this appeal is moot. Per this court’s
letter directing an amended certification or an explanation for continuing the appeal, we
now dismiss this appeal.
Per Curiam
1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(1)(B) (West 2016).
2