Tommy Ray Young v. State

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-05-00192-CR

______________________________

TOMMY RAY YOUNG, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

                                              

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18,586-2004

---

                                                 

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            Tommy Ray Young appeals from his conviction by the trial court for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Young's punishment was enhanced as a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Young to thirty-five years' imprisonment. We dismiss Young's appeal for want of jurisdiction.

            The trial court filed a certification, in accordance with Rule 25.2(a)(2), that this case "[i]s a plea-bargain case, and the Defendant has NO right of appeal." Rule 25.2(a)(2) states, in pertinent part:

            (2) . . . A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.02 and these rules. The trial court shall enter a certification of the defendant's right of appeal in every case in which it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order.

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). If a certification showing that the defendant has the right to appeal is not made a part of the appellate record, we must dismiss the case unless the record affirmatively indicates that an appellant may have the right to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); see Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 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. Nothing in the record indicates the certification is defective. This Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

            On December 28, 2005, we informed Young, by letter, of this apparent defect in our jurisdiction and informed him that, if he did not show us how we have jurisdiction, within ten days of the letter, his appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Young has now requested an extension of thirty days to file a response to our letter. The motion for extension contains no explanation of the need for an extension. We overrule Young's motion for extension.

            We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

 

Date Submitted:          January 11, 2006

Date Decided:             January 12, 2006

Do Not Publish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In The

  Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

 

                                                ______________________________

 

                                                             No. 06-10-00045-CR

                                                ______________________________

 

 

                              CALVIN WAYNE BURNHAM, Appellant

 

                                                                V.

 

                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

                                                                                                  

 

 

                                       On Appeal from the 123rd Judicial District Court

                                                             Panola County, Texas

                                                       Trial Court No. 2005-C-0008

 

                                                                                                   

 

 

 

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

                                              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

            Calvin Wayne Burnham appeals from his convictions by the trial court on four charges of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four charges of indecency with a child.  Burnham has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals.^[1]  He argues that the trial court committed reversible error in considering evidence from a previous revocation hearing when granting the State’s second amended motion to adjudicate guilt and in admitting the results of a polygraph examination.  Burnham also complains that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he violated any conditions of his community supervision.

            We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Burnham’s appeal in cause number 06-10-00038-CR.  For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that reversible error has not been shown in this case.

            We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

 

 

                                                                                    Jack Carter     

                                                                                    Justice

 

Date Submitted:          December 14, 2010    

Date Decided:             December 15, 2010

 

Do Not Publish

---

^[1]Burnham appeals from four convictions of aggravated sexual assault of a child and four convictions of indecency with a child, cause numbers 06-10-00038-CR through 06-10-00045-CR.