Opinion
04-23-01011-CR
01-10-2024
Elva L. MONTEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 700499 Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
On January 13, 2023, Elva Montez was arrested for driving while intoxicated. On July 20, 2023, Montez filed a motion for speedy trial, which sought dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
On September 15, 2023, Montez was charged by information with driving while intoxicated, her second offense, and the information included an open container enhancement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04.
On September 25, 2023, Montez filed a second motion for speedy trial.
On October 10, 2023, after a hearing on Montez's motions for speedy trial, the court denied Montez's motions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A). Montez and her attorney signed a plea bargain agreement. After the trial court admonished Montez, it accepted her plea.
The trial court's certification contains a check mark in the box next to text which states the case "is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal." It also contains a mark-which could be a strike out or a check mark-in the box next to text which states the case "is a plea-bargain case, but matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial and not withdrawn or waived, and the defendant has the right of appeal." See id. R. 25.2(a)(2)(A).
[ ] It is a plea-bargain case, bur matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial and not withdrawn er waived, and the defendant has the right of appeal; [or ]
[ ] is a plea-bargain case, but the trial court has given permission to appeal, and the defendant has the right of appeal; [or]
[ ] is a plea-bargain case, where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute; [or] a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal, [or ]
The clerk's record contains (1) a written plea bargain agreement and (2) the trial court's judgment which shows the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by Montez. See id.
This court must dismiss this appeal "if a certification that the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules." See id. R. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643, 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (reviewing the denial of a speedy trial motion).
We order Appellant to cause an amended trial court certification to be filed in this court within thirty days of the date of this order showing Appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(D), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). If no amended trial court certification is filed as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(D).
All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.