Darrell Anthony Benford v. State

Opinion issued February 13, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00324-CR
———————————
DARRELL ANTHONY BENFORD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 176th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1336333
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Darrell Anthony Benford, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of
assault1 and pleaded true to the allegations in a felony enhancement paragraph.2
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b-1) (West Supp. 2013).
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(b) (West Supp. 2013).
The trial court found appellant guilty, found the enhancement true, and, in
accordance with the terms of appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State,
sentenced appellant to confinement for ten years. Appellant filed a pro se notice of
appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were
raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial
court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West
2006); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification
showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the
record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id.
The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the
defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record
supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant 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.”).
2
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any
pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3