i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00453-CR
Eric Salvador MIRANDA,,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-CR-7411W
Honorable George H. Godwin, Judge Presiding1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 23, 2009
DISMISSED
Appellant Eric Salvador Miranda pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled
substance pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. As part of his plea bargain, appellant signed a
separate “Waiver of Appeal” that states:
1
… Sitting by assignment
04-09-00453-CR
I understand that upon my plea of guilty or nolo contendere, where the
punishment does not exceed that recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by
me, my right to appeal will be limited to only: (1) those matters that were raised by
written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (2) other matters on which the trial
court gives me permission to appeal. I understand that I have this limited right to
appeal. However, as part of my plea bargain agreement in this case, I knowingly and
voluntarily waive my right to appeal under (1) and (2) in exchange for the
prosecutor’s recommendation, provided that the punishment assessed by the court
does not exceed our agreement.
The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement and 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). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. 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.
The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the
punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX . R. APP . P.
25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that appellant 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).
On August 10, 2009, we gave Miranda notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless
written consent to appeal and an amended certification showing Miranda has the right to appeal were
signed by the trial judge and made part of the appellate record by September 9, 2009. 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
-2-
04-09-00453-CR
publication). Neither written permission to appeal nor an amended certification showing Miranda
has the right to appeal has been filed. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-