Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00380-CR
Joshua Allen SCHOPPMAN,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015CR0691
Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 22, 2015
DISMISSED
Joshua Allen Schoppman entered into a written plea agreement with the State pursuant to
which he pleaded nolo contendere to possession of more than four grams but less than 200 grams
of methamphetamine. The terms of the agreement provided that punishment was to be assessed at
ten years’ confinement, to run concurrently with the punishment in two other cases, and imposition
of a $1,500 fine. The State agreed to recommend community supervision. The plea agreement
further stated:
All parties understand and agree that the terms, conditions and length of []
community supervision or deferred adjudication are to be determined and assessed
04-15-00380-CR
solely within the Court’s discretion. It is further understood and agreed by the
parties that in the event the Court assessed terms, conditions and or a length of
supervision . . . different from those agreed to by the parties, that such difference
shall not constitute grounds for setting aside the Defendant’s plea in this cause.
The following statement appears beneath the parties’ signatures on the plea bargain form:
NOTE: The parties are not allowed to make binding agreements regarding the
length of community supervision or the terms and conditions of community
supervision, which are totally dependent upon the Court’s discretion. The following
recommendations do not constitute part of the formal plea agreement.
The note was followed by a recommendation that the period of community supervision be six
years.
The trial court found Schoppman guilty, sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration, and
fined him $1,500. The court suspended imposition of the sentence of confinement and placed
Schoppman on community supervision for ten years. The court signed a certificate stating this “is
a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
Schoppman filed a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal, asserting the trial court failed to
comply with the plea bargain. The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2)
certification and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal
has not been made part of the record.” Id.
This court gave Schoppman notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless an amended
trial court certification showing he has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate record
within thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.–
San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2,
2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Schoppman’s appointed appellate counsel filed
a written response, stating he has reviewed the record and has concluded Schoppman does not
have a right of appeal. After reviewing the record and counsel’s notice, we agree that the
-2-
04-15-00380-CR
punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor
and agreed to by the defendant, and Schoppman does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v.
State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s
record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). We therefore dismiss this
appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-