No. 05-05-00567-CR
Opinion issued February 16, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F-0434632-WM. Dismissed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, WRIGHT and MAZZANT.
Opinion By Justice MAZZANT.
Christopher Edjon Parchman appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the trial court to three years of probation. In his only issue, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We dismiss the appeal because it fails to invoke our jurisdiction.
Discussion
Appellant was indicted for possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.102(6), 481.115(a), (b) (Vernon 2005). He filed a motion to suppress, and a hearing was held before the trial judge on August 20, 2004. Appellant subsequently elected to plead guilty, and the matter was referred to a magistrate. Appellant pleaded guilty before the magistrate to the sole count of the indictment and was sentenced to three years of probation and a fine of $1,500. In his only issue, appellant complains that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The State argues that appellant failed to preserve this complaint for appellate review. We agree. The Rules of Appellate Procedure require, "As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that . . . the trial court . . . ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly. . . ." Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a). Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence, but the trial court never ruled on the motion. The trial court declined to rule after the hearing, the docket sheet contains no order, and no other written order appears in the record. Because the record does not show the trial court actually ruled on appellant's motion to suppress and there is no objection to the refusal to rule, the issue is not preserved for appellate review. See Dunavin v. State, 611 S.W.2d 91, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981) (failure to obtain an adverse ruling on a motion to suppress preserves no error); Garcia v. State, 45 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (appellant failed to obtain ruling on motion to suppress and therefore failed to preserve error); see also State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.) (a docket sheet entry cannot stand as an order); Cates v. State, 752 S.W.2d 175, 178 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, no pet.) (if a motion is not ruled upon by the trial court, no error is preserved); but see Montanez v. State, 143 S.W.3d 344, 345 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, pet. granted) (implying adverse ruling on motion to suppress because of certification by trial court of appellant's right to appeal based on a pre-trial ruling). This was a plea-bargained case. Because the record does not reflect any ruling adverse to appellant on any pretrial written motion or that he had the trial court's permission to appeal from the plea bargain, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2) ("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."); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (appellate court has the ability to examine a certification for defectiveness and is not bound by defective certification); Saldana v. State, 161 S.W.3d 763, 764 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (requirements recited in a certification of appealability must be true and supported by the record). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.