Carender v. State

51 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. State

    No. 05-19-00368-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 17, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    The Court's acts did not exceed the terms of the parties' plea bargain. See Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (noting a sentence-bargaining agreement exists where the State agrees to recommend a "cap" on sentencing or deferred-adjudication probation in exchange for the defendant's guilty plea); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 930-31 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (same); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

  2. Gordon v. State

    No. 05-19-00658-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 10, 2020)   Cited 4 times

    However, a trial court's certification must be true and supported by the record. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that a certification not supported by the record is defective); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (same). When a trial court's certification is contradicted by the record, as it is in this case, that certification will not authorize an appeal beyond what is expressly permitted under Rule 25.2(a)(2) and article 44.02 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  3. Osborne v. State

    NO. 03-16-00802-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 5, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). If, as part of a plea agreement, the State abandons an enhancement paragraph that would have increased the maximum punishment that the defendant could have received, the plea agreement effectively puts a "cap" on punishment, and the requirements of Rule 25.2(a)(2) apply. See Gordon v. State, No. 03-15-00240-CR, 2016 WL 3475179, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 16, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) (noting that plea agreement effectively caps punishment when State waives enhancement allegation); Randle v. State, No. 01-10-00099-CR, 2011 WL 3359703, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 4, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("By abandoning the felony enhancement paragraphs, the State effectively capped Randle's potential sentence at two years, the maximum punishment for a state jail felony."); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (when State withdrew punishment enhancement allegation and thereby decreased defendant's maximum possible sentence, "the plea bargain agreements in these cases effectively put a 'cap' on punishment," and Rule 25.2 applied); see also Strimban v. State, No. 14-15-00251-CR, 2015 WL 8246324, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 8, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (per curiam) ("An agreement that places a cap on punishment is a plea bargain for purposes of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2)."); Alba v. State, Nos. 05-14-00020-21-CR, 2014 WL 6634137, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("An agreement to a punishment cap is a plea agreement within the meaning of rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure."); Threadgill v. State, 120 S.W.3d 871, 872 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) ("Appellant pleaded guilty and agreed to the State's recommended punishment cap o

  4. Randle v. State

    NO. 01-10-00099-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 4, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    There are two basic kinds of plea bargains that affect punishment: sentence bargaining and charge bargaining. Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 930 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2005, no pet.). Sentence bargaining may be for binding or nonbinding recommendations to the court on sentences, including a recommended

  5. Kizzee v. State

    No. 12-24-00067-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 8, 2025)

    Rule 25.2 requirements recited in a certification must be true and supported by the record. Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); Waters v. State, 124 S.W.3d 825, 826-27 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). Here, the record indicates that the trial court did not affirmatively grant Appellant permission to appeal, but rather certified that Appellant has the right to appeal on the grounds that the case "is not a plea-bargain case," a statement we determined supra is untrue.

  6. Lianas v. State

    No. 03-22-00745-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 3, 2024)

    efendant waived any and all rights to appeal, ordering a corrected certification would serve no purpose other than to delay further proceedings as the defendant would still be unable to appeal his conviction"); Costilow v. State, 318 S.W.3d 534, 536 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2010, no pet.) (stating that "[a]lthough the trial court mistakenly entered a certification of the defendant's right to appeal in which the court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal, . . . [t]he trial court's erroneous certification does not constitute permission to appeal"); Pena v. State, 323 S.W.3d 522, 527 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2010, no pet.) (concluding that court of appeals did "not need to order the trial court to correct the certification because the record affirmatively demonstrates that [defendant] does not have the right to appeal"); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (finding that defendant did not have trial judge's permission to appeal where judge erroneously certified that "the appeal is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal"); Ajagbe v. State, 132 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.)

  7. Trevino v. State

    No. 11-24-00204-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 19, 2024)

    A plea-bargaining defendant may not appeal matters related to the voluntariness of his plea unless he has obtained the trial court's permission to appeal. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.).

  8. Davis v. State

    No. 11-24-00162-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 18, 2024)

    We further note that Rule 25.2 does not permit a plea-bargaining defendant to appeal matters related to the voluntariness of his plea unless the defendant has obtained the trial court's permission to appeal. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.).

  9. Houston v. State

    No. 11-24-00087-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 13, 2024)

    We further note that Rule 25.2 does not permit a plea-bargaining defendant to appeal matters related to the voluntariness of his plea unless the defendant has obtained the trial court's permission to appeal. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.).

  10. Lewis v. State

    No. 11-24-00078-CR (Tex. App. May. 9, 2024)

    See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.).