Ruth Frances Vasquez v. State

02-12-451-CR


COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

 

 

 

 

NO. 02-12-00451-CR

 

 

Ruth Frances Vasquez

 

 

 

v.

 

 

 

The State of Texas

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

From the 213th District Court

 

of Tarrant County (1276621D)

 

December 6, 2012

 

Per Curiam

 

(nfp)

 

JUDGMENT

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed.  It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

 

 

PER CURIAM

 

 

 


COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

 

 

 

 

NO. 02-12-00451-CR

 

 

Ruth Frances Vasquez

 

APPELLANT

 

V.

 

The State of Texas

 

STATE

 

 

----------

FROM THE 213th District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

----------

          Appellant Ruth Frances Vasquez attempts to appeal her conviction, pursuant to a plea bargain, for state-jail-felony theft.[2]  On September 14, 2012, appellant received written plea admonishments, waived her constitutional and statutory rights, judicially confessed, and pled guilty.  The trial court convicted her of state-jail-felony theft and sentenced her to eight months’ confinement.  On the same day, the trial court signed a certification of appellant’s right to appeal, which she and her counsel also signed.  The certification states that appellant entered into a plea bargain and has “NO right of appeal.”  Nonetheless, she filed a pro se notice of appeal.

          On September 28, 2012, through a letter, we notified appellant of the contents of the certification and stated that we would dismiss the appeal unless, by October 8, 2012, she filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).  We have not received a response. Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss this appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d) (“The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.”), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Jackson v. State, 168 S.W.3d 239, 243 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

 

 

PER CURIAM

 

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

 

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

 

DELIVERED:  December 6, 2012



[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

[2]See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2012).  The trial court’s judgment indicates that the offense occurred in March 2012.