The Sixth Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for want of jurisdiction. Hill v. State, No. 06-17-00011-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana June 30, 2017)(not designated for publication).

The State argues that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal because of its sentence cap. See Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also Mayes v. State, No. 06-19-00026-CR, 2019 WL 4724555, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Sept. 27, 2019, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Hill v. State, No. 06-17-00011-CR, 2017 WL 2822515, at *1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana June 30, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Both the trial court's certification and the judgment indicate that there was no plea agreement.

Additionally, the State agreed to further cap Sanders's potential punishment at a maximum of twenty-five years' imprisonment, and the trial court honored that cap in its sentence. See Hill v. State, No. 06-17-00011-CR, 2017 WL 2822515, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana June 30, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, the charge bargain constitutes a plea agreement for purposes of Rule 25.2(a)(2).