Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-14-00860-CR & 04-14-00861-CR
Michael MACIEL,
Appellant
v.
The STATE
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 2014CR4959B & 20144960B
Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 21, 2015
DISMISSED
The trial court’s certification in each of these appeals states that “this criminal case is a
plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record for each appeal
contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment
recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s
certification in each case accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
04-14-00860-CR & 04-14-00861-CR
Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be
dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part
of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On December 16, 2014, we ordered that
these appeals would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court
certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate
record by January 14, 2015. 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.).
On January 15, 2015, appellant’s counsel has filed a written response stating that counsel
has reviewed the records and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” As a result, counsel
states she “can find no reason to seek an amended certification from the trial court.” See TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d)
requires this court to dismiss these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-