Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00541-CR
George RAMIREZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019CR5859
Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 30, 2020
DISMISSED
The clerk’s record has been filed in this case. The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s
Rule 25.2 certification, which does not show appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2. We issued an order notifying appellant that this appeal would be dismissed within 30 days
of the order if: (1) a certification or amended certification showing appellant has the right of appeal
has not been made part of the record; and (2) the trial court’s certification is not defective. See id.
R. 25.2(d) (requiring us to dismiss a criminal appeal if a certification that shows the defendant has
the right of appeal has not been made part of the record). Because no amended certification
04-20-00541-CR
showing appellant has the right of appeal has been made part of the appellate record, the only issue
is whether the trial court’s certification is defective in the notification of the defendant’s appellate
rights. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals must
determine whether the certification is defective).
The trial court’s certification states this is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no
right of appeal. See R. 25.2(a); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. The clerk’s record
also does not show the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal or contain any matters
that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. See R. 25.2(a). Appellant’s counsel
argues the certification is defective in the notification of the defendant’s appellate rights.
Counsel states, “The parties entered into a plea bargain on July 31, 2019, under which
appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the charged offense in exchange for a punishment
recommendation of four [4] years’ community supervision.” However, the July 31, 2019 plea
bargain states the parties “mutually agreed and recommended” that punishment be “assessed at
Four (4) years” with a fine of $1,000. Although the State recommended community supervision,
the plea bargain states, “The State may make recommendations regarding punishment; however,
it is understood by all that even in the event the parties agree to recommend specific conditions
and terms of community supervision or deferred adjudication or the length of supervision that such
recommendations are not part of the formal plea agreement and are not binding on the Court.” The
trial court assessed at four years’ confinement and a $1,000 fine.
Because the plea bargain expressly states recommendations regarding community
supervision are not part of the plea agreement and are not binding, 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 id. We conclude the trial court’s certification is not
-2-
04-20-00541-CR
defective in its notification of the defendant’s appellate rights. Accordingly, we must dismiss this
appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-3-