Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00094-CR
Joshua Joel LALUZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of TexasAppellee
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013CR1397A
Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2014
DISMISSED
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Joshua Joel Laluz pleaded guilty to the
offense of human trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen for the purpose of prostitution.
As part of his plea-bargain, appellant signed a separate “Waiver of Appeal.” The trial court
imposed sentence and signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant
has NO right of appeal” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(a)(2). After appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, the clerk sent copies of the certification
and notice of appeal to this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes
04-14-00094-CR
the plea bargain agreement and the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the trial 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). After reviewing the clerk’s record, the trial court’s certification therefore appears to
accurately reflect that this is a plea bargain case and Laluz 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). 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.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).
On February 14, 2014, we gave appellant notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless
written consent to appeal and an amended certification showing appellant has the right to appeal
were signed by the trial judge and made part of the appellate record by March 17, 2014. 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 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 2, 2003,
pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Neither written permission to appeal nor an amended
certification showing appellant has the right to appeal has been filed. We therefore dismiss this
appeal.
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
-2-