Opinion
Nos. 05-02-00854-CR, 05-02-00855-CR.
Opinion issued February 4, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 4-86064-01; 4-86066-01. Affirmed.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FRANCIS, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lester Jon Ruston appeals his harassment convictions. Appellant entered pleas of no contest in each case, and the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 180 days' confinement and a $2000 fine in each case. In six points of error, appellant complains of the denial of his motion to quash, the validity of his plea agreement, the trial court's failure to order the production of certain exculpatory evidence, the denial of his right to a speedy trial, the trial court's failure to require appellant's presence at a pretrial hearing, and the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The record shows appellant was charged with two separate harassment offenses. In each case, appellant entered a plea of no contest and signed an agreed plea in which the State recommended a $2000 fine and 180 days' confinement in each case. Among other things, the sentence recommendation signed by appellant stated:
I know and fully understand that if the punishment given to me does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State, I may not appeal, without the permission of the court, any matter that was not raised by written motion filed prior to trial.The trial court followed the State's recommendation and ordered appellant's sentences to run concurrently. This appeal followed. In his first point of error, appellant argues his motion to quash in cause number 05-02-00855-CR should have been granted due to a defective probable cause affidavit and/or error or perjury by one of the affiants. Because the record contains appellant's written, pre-trial motion to quash, we have jurisdiction to address appellant's first issue. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). However, as a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the trial court ruled on appellant's motion or refused to rule on the motion and appellant objected to the refusal. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(2). The only "ruling" in the record is a notation on the trial court's docket sheet that appellant's motion to quash was denied. Docket sheet entries are not part of the record because they are inherently unreliable, lacking the formality of orders and judgments. State v. Shaw, 4 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). Accordingly, we conclude appellant has waived his argument concerning the denial of his pre-trial motion to quash. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(2). We overrule appellant's first point of error. We note that all of appellant's remaining points of error address issues that were not raised by written motion filed prior to trial. In addition, the record does not show the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal these issues. As a result, appellant may not appeal these issues, and we need not address appellant's second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth points of error. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(a)(2).; Monreal, 99 S.W.3d at 622. We affirm the trial court's judgments.