Opinion
No. 06-04-00139-CR
Submitted: April 25, 2005.
Decided: April 26, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 102nd Judicial District Court Bowie County, Texas, Trial Court No. 02F0677-102.
Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles Ray Smith was charged by indictment with aggravated assault. Smith pled not guilty and proceeded to trial. The jury found Smith guilty, and the trial court assessed Smith's punishment at eight years' imprisonment. Sentence was imposed September 8, 2004. Thereafter, Smith waived his right to appeal the trial court's judgment. Nevertheless, on September 15, 2004, Smith filed a pro se notice of appeal. In another pro se motion filed the same day, Smith alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel allowed Smith to sign a waiver of his right to appeal. In Texas, "a defendant in a noncapital criminal case `may waive any rights secured him by law. . . .'" Dorsey v. State, 84 S.W.3d 8, 9 — 10 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (quoting Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002)). A waiver of the right to appeal that is made after the pronouncement of judgment and sentence is valid and binding. Id. at 10 (citing Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000)). A defendant's subsequent notice of appeal does not act to withdraw the earlier waiver of appeal. Id. (citing Ex parte Tabor, 565 S.W.2d 945, 946 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978)). In this case, the trial court's amended certification states Smith waived his right to appeal. The certification further reflects "that the [trial] Court admonished the Defendant of the right of appeal[,] and [he] twice responded of the intent to waive any appeal." The record before us supports the trial court's certification. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.