Opinion
NO. 12-14-00275-CRNO. 12-14-00276-CRNO. 12-14-00277-CR
09-24-2014
DELANDA LETREGG PLAYER, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEALS FROM THE 114THJUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Delanda Letregg Player, pleaded guilty to the offenses of possession of a controlled substance (appellate cause number 12-14-00275-CR), failure to register as a sex offender (appellate cause number 12-14-00276-CR), and manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance (appellate cause number 12-14-00277-CR). In each case, Appellant signed an acknowledgment of admonishments, a stipulation of evidence, a waiver of jury trial, and an agreement to stipulate testimony. Also, in each case, Appellant, his counsel, and counsel for the State signed an agreed punishment recommendation. The trial court certified in each appeal that this "is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO RIGHT OF APPEAL[.]" The trial court's certifications are signed by the trial court, Appellant, and Appellant's counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) limits a defendant's right to appeal in a plea bargain case when he pleads guilty and his punishment does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Under those circumstances, the defendant may appeal only (1) matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or (2) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal. Id. Here, in each case, the trial court sentenced Appellant in accordance with the agreed recommendation by the State. The trial court did not give Appellant permission to appeal, and the pretrial motion for continuance filed by Appellant was granted. Therefore, we conclude that the certification of the right of appeal filed by the trial court in each appeal is supported by the record. We conclude further that Appellant has no right to appeal in any of the causes because he was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismissthe appeals "without further action." See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Opinion delivered September 24, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0761-14)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0761-14)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0761-14)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.