In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-15-00160-CR
___________________
BEATRIZ NOYOLA-NAVARRO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-286349
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Beatriz Noyola-Navarro appeals her conviction for driving while
intoxicated, a class B misdemeanor. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a), (b) (West
Supp. 2016).1 Before trial, Noyola-Navarro filed a motion to suppress evidence,
claiming that no probable cause existed to warrant the police stopping her car,
which resulted in her arrest for driving while intoxicated. The trial court denied
1
We cite the current version of the Texas Penal Code, as any amendments to
the provisions at issue do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
1
Noyola-Navarro’s motion to suppress. Based on her plea agreement with the State,
the trial court, immediately after ruling on the motion to suppress, proceeded to
hear Noyola-Navarro’s plea. In accordance with Noyola-Navarro’s plea-bargain
agreement with the State, she pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, and the court
sentenced her to three days in the Montgomery County Jail, imposed a $1,000 fine,
and ordered that Noyola-Navarro pay court costs. Subsequently, the trial court
certified that Noyola-Navarro’s case was a plea-bargain case and gave Noyola-
Navarro the right to appeal only as to matters “raised by written motion filed and
rule[d] on before trial and not withdrawn or waived[.]” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 44.02 (West 2006); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record
includes a copy of the trial court’s certification regarding Noyola-Navarro’s right
to appeal.
On appeal, Noyola-Navarro presents two issues challenging the
voluntariness of her plea and the sufficiency of the evidence to support her
conviction. However, in her appeal, Noyola-Navarro does not raise any issues that
argue the trial court should have granted her motion to suppress. Significantly, the
trial court’s certification regarding Noyola-Navarro’s right to appeal did not allow
Noyola-Navarro to raise issues beyond the scope of the matters the trial court
certified for appeal, and the two issues that Noyola-Navarro argues in her brief are
2
wholly unrelated to her motion to suppress, which was the only pretrial motion that
she filed.
Section 44.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes trial
courts to restrict a defendant’s right to appeal to those matters raised in pretrial
motions on which the defendant secures a ruling. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 44.02. Because the trial court did not authorize Noyola-Navarro to appeal the
matters she challenges in the two issues she raises in her brief and she did not
secure a ruling prior to trial on them, the two issues on which she seeks our review
were not properly preserved for review. See Goyzueta v. State, 266 S.W.3d 126,
136 (Tex. App.―Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).We overrule issues one and two, and
we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on February 1, 2016
Opinion Delivered November 2, 2016
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
3