Opinion
05-23-00212-CR
06-21-2023
ROBERT BRENT STEEDMAN, JR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b) 230212F.U05
On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 074621
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
Robert Brent Steedman, Jr. appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault. Appellant and the State reached an agreement that appellant would plead guilty in exchange for receiving a sentence of fifty-five years' imprisonment or less. The trial court approved the plea bargain and sentenced appellant to five years' imprisonment. We lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On March 30, 2022, appellant was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child. On September 28, 2022, appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement that the trial court would decide appellant's punishment and that the punishment would not exceed fifty-five years' imprisonment. At that hearing, the trial court told appellant he could not appeal his conviction, stating, "As long as I sentence you to 55 years or less, then you don't get to appeal. You understand?" Appellant answered, "Yes, sir." That same day, appellant signed an express waiver of his right to appeal. The trial court, appellant, his attorney, and the State's attorney signed the trial court's certification of appellant's right of appeal, which states the case "is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has NO right of appeal; . . . the defendant has waived the right of appeal."
At the sentencing hearing on January 16, 2023, the trial court told appellant, "I'm going to sentence you to ten years, but I'll probate it for five." On February 6, 2023, the trial court held a rehearing on sentencing because the court had learned appellant could not receive deferred adjudication community supervision unless the court made a finding that deferred adjudication community supervision was in the victim's best interest. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.102(a). At a sentencing hearing on February 27, 2023, the court stated, "I just can't, based on the evidence, in good faith, make a finding that it's in that little girl's best interest for Mr. Steedman to get deferred probation. The Court is going to sentence him to five years TDC." The trial court also stated, "I would be happy for you to, if you want to post a notice of appeal, and appeal that to try to see if there is some kind of wiggle room on how to define the deferred probation options for somebody in this case. I'll be happy to let him have appeal bond while that's being decided." On March 7, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On March 9, 2023, the trial court held another hearing and told appellant, "I had forgotten that you had agreed to a cap. When you agreed to a cap of five years, you also waived your right to appeal. Okay. So you don't have a legal right to appeal." The trial court apologized for telling appellant he could appeal. Appellant testified at the March 9 hearing that he understood when he pleaded guilty he did not have a right to appeal unless the trial court granted permission to appeal and that he understood the trial court was not granting permission to appeal.
A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal as set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02. Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a) Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 provides that in "a plea-bargain case-that is, a case in which a defendant's plea was guilty . . . and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant," a defendant may appeal only "those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial," "after getting the trial court's permission to appeal," or "where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute." Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2). When an appellant waives his right to appeal as part of his plea bargain agreement with the State, a subsequent notice of appeal filed by him fails to "initiate the appellate process," Lundgren v. State, 434 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), and "no inquiry into even possibly meritorious claims may be made," Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When an appeal from a plea bargain is not authorized by Rule 25.2, "[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." Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680.
In this case, the record shows appellant and the State agreed appellant would plead guilty in exchange for having the range of punishment capped at fifty-five years instead of the maximum punishment of ninety-nine years or life imprisonment. See Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). At the plea hearing, the trial court told appellant he was waiving his right to appeal by pleading guilty. The documents appellant signed admonished appellant he would have no right of appeal if the trial court followed the punishment recommendation except for matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. The clerk's record does not contain any motion ruled on before trial, and the certification of appellant's right of appeal shows the trial court did not grant appellant permission to appeal. Also, the documents appellant signed included an express waiver of appeal. Therefore, under Rule 25.2(a), appellant has no right of appeal. See Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680.
Rule 25.2(d) also requires the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal if there is no certification from the trial court showing the defendant has the right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The certification affirmatively shows appellant did not have the right to appeal, and the certification is supported by the record. Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal. Id.; see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We conclude we lack jurisdiction over this appeal from a plea-bargained conviction. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Judgment entered June 21, 2023