Opinion issued July 29, 2014.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00847-CR
———————————
SALVADOR MARTINEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 177th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1333380
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to an agreement with the State, appellant, Salvador Martinez,
pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child.1 The trial
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B), (2)(B) (West Supp. 2013).
court accepted the plea agreement, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement
for twenty years, and certified that this is a plea-bargained case and he has no right
of appeal. In his pro se notice of appeal, appellant acknowledged that he was
sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement, but stated that he “was pressured by his
counsel to Plea Bargain instead of going to trial while showing Defendant very
little if any evidence . . . was ever considered in his conviction,” had no faith in his
counsel, and “asked his Counsel to step down if he had no intention of protecting
his civil rights according to the amendments of the U.S. Constitution.” We dismiss
the appeal.
In a plea-bargained case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that
were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or after obtaining the trial
court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006);
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the
record and states that this is a plea-bargained case and appellant has no right of
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’s
certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Appellant does not complain about a pre-trial motion and does not have permission
to appeal. Rather, the basis of his appeal is his contention that his counsel was
ineffective. The Court of Criminal Appeals, however, has held that the
effectiveness of counsel may not be contested on appeal following a plea bargain
2
agreement. See Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez
v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while
having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is
permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without
further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all
pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3