Frank Steven Kepa v. State










In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-05-00084-CR

______________________________



FRANK STEVEN KEPA, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



                                              


On Appeal from the 27th Judicial District Court

Bell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 56608



                                                 




Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Appellant, Frank Steven Kepa, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, and also asks this Court to immediately issue the mandate. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 18.1 and 42.2, his motion is granted.

            We dismiss the appeal, and the mandate is hereby issued along with our opinion.

 

 

                                                                                    Josh R. Morriss, III

                                                                                    Chief Justice


Date Submitted:          April 25, 2005

Date Decided:             April 26, 2005


Do Not Publish

opy is now also before this Court in the supplemental record. It states that it is an offer, details proposed punishment, and states that Jackson was to appear before the trial court June 16, 2009. The punishment assessed by the court is the punishment specified by the offer.

The waiver of right of appeal relied on by the trial court in this case is effective only if a plea agreement exists and was followed by the court. We have examined the clerk's record to determine whether the trial court's certification is defective. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613. Based on the record as it has now been supplemented, we find no such defect. It appears a plea agreement existed and was followed by the trial court. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.









We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.





Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice



Date Submitted: January 5, 2010

Date Decided: January 6, 2010



Do Not Publish



1. The trial court assessed Jackson's punishment at one year, probated for two years, and assessed a $1,200.00 fine.

2. Upon receiving the clerk's record, we observed a number of anomalies. Jackson appears to be indigent, but was not represented by counsel at trial. We find nothing in the record to explain how this occurred. The record did show that the State filed a motion to revoke Jackson's community supervision and that, at a joint hearing on revocation and on his motion for new trial, Jackson was represented by counsel, Don Cooksey. Between the time of the hearing and the filing of the notice of appeal, Cooksey surrendered his law license, rendering Jackson again pro se.

3. The trial court states that it conducted an en masse admonishment session with Jackson and "other defendants that had misdemeanor cases pending." The court recites that it admonished all defendants of their rights and warned them of the dangers of self-representation.