Opinion issued April 7, 2005
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
____________
NO. 01-05-00070-CR
____________
FRANK JOSEPH DAYS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 180th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 957400
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Frank Joseph Days, pleaded true to the State’s motion to revoke community supervision on December 10, 2004. Contemporaneously with the plea, appellant, appellant’s counsel, and the prosecutor signed a stipulation of evidence that included, among others, the following statements:
PLEA BARGAIN: I intend to enter a plea of TRUE to these allegations that I violated my supervision and understand that the prosecutor will recommend that my punishment should be set at: 2 [years] TDC[J] [and a] $1000 [fine]; I agree to this recommendation.
WAIVER OF APPEAL: I ask the court to accept this plea bargain agreement and understand that if the punishment assessed does not exceed this recommendation, the court will not give me permission to appeal. I hereby give up any and all rights that I may have to appeal this case, including any right that I may have to file a motion for new trial.
Appellant wrote his initials beside each of these statements.
The trial court proceeded to find appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision and, following the plea agreement, sentenced appellant to confinement for two years and a $1000 fine. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. The trial court’s amended certification of appellant’s right of appeal states that appellant waived the right to appeal.
A valid waiver of the right to appeal will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial court. Willis v. State, 121 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The record indicates that appellant’s waiver of his right to appeal was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. The record also indicates that the trial court did not consent to an appeal. The trial court’s judgment is stamped, “Appeal waived. No permission to appeal granted.”
In Alzarka v. State, 90 S.W.3d 321, 323-24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the record directly contradicted and rebutted any presumption raised by the form waiver of the right to appeal. This case is unlike the record presented in Alzarka in two important ways. The first is that appellant wrote his initials beside the waiver language, affirmatively waiving the right to appeal. Second, unlike Alzarka, the trial court did not grant permission to appeal.
Because the record in this case reflects that appellant’s waiver of the right to appeal was valid and that the trial court did not consent to an appeal, we order the appeal dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes and Hanks.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).