Anthony Williams v. State

Opinion issued September 26, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00293-CR
———————————
ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1557990
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Anthony Williams, was convicted of the offense of robbery and
sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.02(a). We dismiss the
appeal.
Williams was indicted for robbery, a second-degree offense. See TEX. PENAL
CODE § 29.02(b). Williams pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a jury trial. After the
jury found him guilty of the offense of robbery, but before the punishment phase
began, Williams orally agreed that he had reached an agreement with the State as to
punishment, in which he agreed to an 11-year sentence in exchange for waiving his
right to appeal. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the jury’s verdict
of guilty and the agreed eleven-year sentence. Williams filed a notice of appeal.
The trial court entered a certification that Williams waived his right to appeal.1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is included in the record
on appeal. See id.
A waiver of the right to appeal is valid if it is “made voluntarily, knowingly,
and intelligently” and this waiver will prevent the defendant from appealing without
the trial court’s permission. Bruner v. State, No. 01-18-00635-CR, 2018 WL
4131088, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2018, no pet.) (citing Ex
parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)). The record
indicates that Williams voluntarily agreed, with his counsel’s advice, to waive his
right to appeal in exchange for an eleven-year sentence after the jury found him
1
The trial court added a handwritten ground in its certification of Williams’s right to
appeal. Because the handwritten ground essentially constitutes waiver of the right
to appeal, we consider the certification to determine that Williams waived the right
to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2
guilty. Thus, the record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State,
154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Because Williams has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. 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, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3