Jeffrey Scott Wilson v. State

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                COURT OF APPEALS

                                                 SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                 FORT WORTH

 

 

                                       NOS. 2-06-022-CR

                                                2-06-023-CR

 

 

JEFFREY SCOTT WILSON                                                     APPELLANT

 

                                                   V.

 

STATE OF TEXAS                                                                      STATE

 

                                              ------------

 

             FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

 

                                              ------------

 

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

 

                                              ------------


On January 6, 2006, appellant Jeffrey Scott Wilson pled guilty to APossession/Transport Chemicals With Intent to Manufacture Controlled Substance@ and evading arrest.  See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.124 (Vernon Supp. 2005); Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 38.04 (Vernon 2003).  Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sentenced to twelve years= confinement on the possession/transport charge and two years= confinement on the evading arrest charge.

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on January 20, 2006 challenging both convictions.  On January 25, 2006, the trial court entered its certifications of defendant=s right to appeal in accordance with rule 25.2(a)(2).  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  The certification for each appeal states that it Ais a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal@ and that appellant Ahas waived the right of appeal.@  On January 26, 2006, we notified appellant that the certifications indicating that he had no right to appeal and that he had waived his right to appeal had been filed in this court and that these appeals would be dismissed unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 44.3.  Appellant has not filed a response.

Therefore, in accordance with the trial court=s certifications, we dismiss these appeals.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 43.2(f).

 

PER CURIAM

 

PANEL D:   LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

 

DELIVERED: March 2, 2006



[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.