Christopher Stephen Martin v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-24-00120-CR
CHRISTOPHER STEPHEN MARTIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 6th District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30221
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 17, 2024, Christopher Stephen Martin pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance in the amount of less than one gram,1 and pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court
sentenced him to ten years’ confinement in prison.2 Despite the trial court’s certification that this
was a plea-agreement case and that Martin had no right of appeal, Martin filed a notice of appeal.
After reviewing the clerk’s record in this matter, we noted potential defects in our
jurisdiction over this appeal. More specifically, it appeared that this was a plea-agreement case
in which Martin had no right of appeal. It further appeared that, even if Martin had a right of
appeal, he (1) freely and voluntarily waived that right and (2) failed to timely perfect the appeal.
The Texas Legislature has granted a very limited right of appeal in plea-bargain cases.
Rule 25.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure details that right as follows:
(2) . . . 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
(C) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
1
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b) (Supp.)
2
Martin’s punishment was enhanced by two prior convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42.
2
There was no indication in the record that Martin either (1) filed a motion that was ruled
on before trial or (2) obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. To the contrary, the trial
court’s certification of Martin’s right of appeal indicated that he “ha[d] NO right of appeal.”
Further, there is no statute that expressly authorized this specific appeal. Pursuant to Rule
25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court is required to dismiss an appeal if,
as in this case, the trial court’s certification indicates that there is no right of appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.2(d). Additionally, Martin and his trial attorney signed an explicit waiver of his right
to appeal. Consequently, even if Martin had a right of appeal, he waived it. Finally, Martin’s
notice of appeal was untimely under the requirements of Rule 26.2 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2.
On August 5, 2024, we notified Martin of the potential defects in our jurisdiction over
this appeal and gave him an opportunity to either remedy the defects, if possible, or demonstrate
how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding those defects. We informed Martin that
he had twenty days from the date of our letter to provide the Court a satisfactory response. The
Court also warned Martin that, in the event we did not receive a satisfactory response to our
letter, we would dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. We did not receive a satisfactory
response from Martin.
3
Because Martin has no right of appeal due to his plea bargain with the State, because the
trial court’s certification correctly indicates that he is without a right of appeal, and because,
even if he had a right of appeal, he failed to timely perfect it and voluntarily waived it, we
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Jeff Rambin
Justice
Date Submitted: September 17, 2024
Date Decided: September 18, 2024
Do Not Publish
4