Opinion
No. 05-03-01391-CR, 05-03-01392-CR, 05-03-01393-CR
Opinion Filed October 29, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F99-01008-HR, F99-52392-JR, F99-52393-JR. DISMISS
Before Justices MOSELEY, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Barbara Ann Dears pleaded guilty to indictments charging theft of property, having two prior theft convictions; possession with intent to deliver heroin in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams; and possession of cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102, 481.112(d) 481.115(d) (Vernon 2003). She also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in the theft case. In the theft and heroin cases, punishment was assessed at ten years confinement. Appellant was later placed on community supervision for ten years after a motion for shock probation was granted. In the cocaine case, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on ten years community supervision. The State subsequently moved to revoke community supervision in cause nos. 05-03-01391-CR and 05-03-01392-CR and to adjudicate guilt in cause no. 05-03-01393-CR. Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant pleaded true to allegations in the motions to revoke and adjudicate guilt in exchange for five year sentences. The trial court followed the agreements and sentenced appellant to five years confinement in each case. We have received the trial court's certifications stating that these cases involve plea bargains and appellant does not have the right to appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.
In the theft case, punishment was originally assessed at ten years confinement, probated for ten years, and a $100 fine. Appellant was later revoked and sentenced to ten years confinement, then a motion for shock probation was granted and appellant was placed on community supervision.
These cases do not involve the situation in which appellant entered negotiated guilty pleas and is now being held to have no right to appeal. Although these cases do not fall squarely within the language of rule 25.2(a)(2) regarding plea bargains, we see no reason why appellant should not be bound by the plea bargain agreement she entered for punishment at the time her community supervision was revoked in cause nos. 05-03-01391-CR and 05-03-01392-CR and her guilt was adjudicated in cause no. 05-03-01393-CR.