Ex Parte Luis Resendiz Romero

NUMBER 13-22-00332-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
Ex parte Luis Resendiz Romero
On appeal from the 18th District Court
of Johnson County, Texas.
ORDER
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
Order Per Curiam
Appellant, Luis Resendiz Romero, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court
attempting to appeal an order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus in trial court
cause number DCF202100120. The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to
appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be
dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of appeal is not made a
part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The purpose of the
certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non-appealable
cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered while
eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with non-appealable
cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 649
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon.
Don W. Bonner, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether
appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings
as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the
existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant
has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within
thirty days of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant
has a right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610,
614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to
appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under
circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the
applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by
the record. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314,
316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that
recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of
record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting
appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,
10.2.
2
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on
the 28th day of July 2022.
3