Joshua Wayne Hargraves v. State

Opinion issued May 9, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-13-00194-CR
NO. 01-13-00195-CR
NO. 01-13-00196-CR
____________
JOSHUA WAYNE HARGRAVES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 10th District Court
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 11CR0683, 11CR0684, & 11CR0685
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement with the State, appellant Joshua Wayne
Hargraves pleaded guilty to two felony offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a
disabled person and one felony offense of indecency with a child by contact. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11 (West 2011), § 22.021 (West Supp. 2012). The
plea-bargain in these cases entailed the State’s agreement to abandon an
enhancement paragraph for each offense in exchange for appellant’s pleas of guilty.
See Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The trial
court accepted appellant’s pleas and found appellant guilty of the offenses. The
trial court then sentenced appellant to confinement for 50 years in the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for each offense of
aggravated sexual assault and for 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice for the offense of indecency with a child by contact,
and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. Appellant has filed notices of
appeal. We dismiss the appeals.
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. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). A charge-bargain, like
that entered into by the appellant and the State in these cases, where the defendant
agrees to plead guilty in exchange for the prosecutor bringing lesser charges or
agreeing to remove enhancements, is a plea-bargain under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 25.2. See Shankle, 119 S.W.3d at 813–14. 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).
2
Here, the trial court’s certifications are included in the record on appeal. See
id. The trial court’s certifications indicate that these are plea bargain cases and the
appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record
supports that appellant has no right of appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610,
615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must
dismiss these appeals. 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 reinstate and dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3