Alvarez v. State

Full title: FRANCISCO GARCIA ALVAREZ, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jan 7, 2011

No. 05-09-00079-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 7, 2011)

Opinion

No. 05-09-00079-CR

Opinion issued January 7, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F07-58851-XV.

Before Chief Justice WRIGHT and Justices FRANCIS and FILLMORE.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Chief Justice WRIGHT.

In the trial court, Francisco Garcia Alvarez, Jr. waived a jury and pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(a) (West 2006). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at two years' imprisonment. In a single issue, appellant contends he did not receive effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to present evidence on appellant's motion to quash the indictment. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellant filed a pretrial motion to quash the indictment, which the trial court denied. Appellant then entered his guilty plea. The trial court's rule 25.2(d) certification of appellant's right to appeal states this "is a plea-bargain case, but matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, and not withdrawn or waived, and the defendant has the right of appeal." Appellant filed a brief in which his sole issue was that counsel was ineffective in not presenting evidence on the motion to quash the indictment. In a plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only (a) those matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or (b) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A), (B). Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel complaint does not challenge the trial court's ruling on the motion to quash, nor did the trial court generally give appellant permission to appeal. Thus, we conclude we do not have jurisdiction to address appellant's complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining analysis courts of appeals undertake in determining appellate rights of plea-bargaining defendants). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.