Case Information
*1 Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00003-CR Richard HERNANDEZ , Appellant v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015CR8929 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 15, 2017
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Richard Hernandez pled nolo contendere to indecency with a child by contact and was sentenced to eight years in prison and a $1000.00 fine in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On December 1, 2016, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). After Hernandez filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See
04-17-00003-CR id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d).
“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave Hernandez permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and that Hernandez does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).
We, therefore, informed Hernandez that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that Hernandez had the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). No amended trial court certification has been filed. Additionally, Hernandez’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a response acknowledging that this appeal must be dismissed. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH
- 2 -