Jibri Caleb Coleman v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 29, 2024
    S  In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-23-01113-CR
    JIBRI CALEB COLEMAN, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F22-76038
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Smith
    Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
    Jibri Caleb Coleman appeals his conviction for murder. Appellant pleaded
    guilty before the trial court pursuant to a plea bargain, and the trial court followed
    the plea bargain and sentenced appellant to seventeen years’ imprisonment. We
    conclude we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we dismiss the appeal.
    On November 1, 2023, appellant signed a plea agreement stating he would
    plead guilty to the charged offense of murder and be sentenced to a “Term of
    Confinement in penitentiary for 17 years” with an affirmative finding that he “used
    or exhibited a deadly weapon, to-wit:        Firearm.”    The trial court’s written
    admonitions to appellant included, “If the punishment assessed does not exceed the
    agreement between you and the prosecutor, the Court must give its permission to
    you before you may appeal on any matter in this case except for those matters raised
    by written motions prior to trial.” The plea agreement also included written waivers
    of appellant’s rights, including: “With the Court’s approval, the defendant herein
    states that he/she: 11. Waives the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals.”
    During the plea hearing, the trial court told appellant, “Your lawyer has
    explained to you I have followed this plea agreement and you have no rights to
    appeal? You understand that?”; and appellant answered, “Yes.” The trial court’s
    certification of defendant’s right of appeal states, “I certify that this criminal case:
    is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal; the defendant has
    waived the right of appeal.”
    A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal as set out in the Code
    of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
    PROC. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a). Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides the following
    related to appeal rights in plea bargain cases:
    In a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was
    guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the
    punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the
    defendant—a defendant may appeal only:
    (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed
    and ruled on before trial,
    (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or
    –2–
    (C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by
    statute.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A)–(C). When an appellant waives the right to appeal as
    part of a plea bargain agreement with the State, a subsequent notice of appeal fails
    to “initiate the appellate process,” Lundgren v. State, 
    434 S.W.3d 594
    , 599, 600
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), and “no inquiry into even possibly meritorious claims may
    be made.” Chavez v. State, 
    183 S.W.3d 675
    , 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When an
    appeal from a plea bargain is not authorized by Rule 25.2, “[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, regardless of the basis for the appeal.” Chavez, 
    183 S.W.3d at 680
    .
    In this case, the record shows appellant and the State agreed appellant would
    plead guilty in exchange for a specific recommended punishment. The documents
    appellant signed admonished appellant he would have no right of appeal if the trial
    court followed the punishment recommendation except for matters raised by written
    motion and ruled on before trial or if the trial court granted appellant permission to
    appeal. The clerk’s record does not contain any motion ruled on before trial, and the
    certification of appellant’s right of appeal shows the trial court did not grant
    appellant permission to appeal. Therefore, under Rule 25.2(a), appellant has no right
    of appeal. See Chavez, 
    183 S.W.3d at 680
    .
    Rule 25.2(d) also requires the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal if there is
    no certification from the trial court showing the defendant has the right of appeal.
    –3–
    TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Here, the certification affirmatively shows appellant did not
    have the right to appeal, and the certification is supported by the record. Therefore,
    we must dismiss the appeal. Id.; see Dears v. State, 
    154 S.W.3d 610
    , 613 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2005).
    We requested letter briefs from appellant and the State addressing the
    jurisdictional issue. Appellant’s counsel filed a letter brief analyzing the record, the
    statutes, and the case law governing this case, and counsel concluded, “In light of
    the record and the law applicable to the appeal of a plea bargain agreement, it does
    not appear that Appellant has a right of appeal in this case.”
    We conclude we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the appeal is from
    a plea-bargained conviction from which appellant does not have the right of appeal
    and because appellant waived the right of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this
    appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    /Robbie Partida-Kipness/
    ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
    JUSTICE
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
    231113F.U05
    –4–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    JIBRI CALEB COLEMAN,                        On Appeal from the Criminal District
    Appellant                                   Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F22-76038.
    No. 05-23-01113-CR         V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
    Kipness. Justices Nowell and Smith
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for
    want of jurisdiction.
    Judgment entered February 29, 2024
    –5–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-23-01113-CR

Filed Date: 2/29/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/6/2024