COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00116-CR
CARLOS ARTURO SANCHEZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1422793D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
A grand jury indicted Appellant Carlos Arturo Sanchez for one count of
possession of a controlled substance in the amount of one gram or more but less
than four grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c) (West 2010).
The indictment contained a habitual offender paragraph alleging that Sanchez
had two prior felony convictions, the second of which was for an offense that he
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
committed after his conviction for the first felony had become final. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2016). Sanchez and the State reached
a plea bargain agreement whereby Sanchez agreed to plead guilty to the
possession charge, and in exchange, the State waived the habitual-offender
allegations and recommended that the trial court sentence Sanchez to six years’
confinement. On February 12, 2016, Sanchez pleaded guilty to possession of a
controlled substance in the amount of one gram or more but less than four
grams, and in accordance with the plea bargain agreement, the trial court
sentenced him to six years’ confinement. The trial court certified that Sanchez
had no right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
On March 17, 2016, Sanchez filed a pro se notice of appeal in the trial
court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c). We notified Sanchez and his trial counsel
that our review of the record revealed that the trial court certified that he had no
right to appeal. We further stated that we would dismiss the appeal unless
Sanchez or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing
grounds for continuing the appeal no later than July 29, 2016. See Tex. R. App.
P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Our notice to Sanchez was returned because he had been
moved to a different unit. So on July 29, 2016, we notified Sanchez at his new
address, as well as his trial counsel, that we would dismiss the appeal unless
Sanchez or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing
grounds for continuing the appeal no later than August 8, 2016.
2
We have not received any response showing grounds for continuing this
appeal. The record does not show that Sanchez’s sentence exceeded the
State’s recommendations, that Sanchez desires to appeal a matter that was
raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or that the trial court
granted Sanchez permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Thus, in
accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex.
R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 25, 2016
3