Opinion i ssued May 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01 - 13 - 0 0194 - CR NO. 01 - 13 - 00195 - CR NO. 01 - 13 - 00196 - CR

____________ JOSHUA WAYNE HARGRAVES , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 11CR0683, 11CR0684, & 11CR0685

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement with the State, appellant Joshua Wayne Hargraves pleaded guilty to two f elony offense s of aggravated sexual assault of a disabled person and one felony offense of indecency with a child by contact. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 21.11 (West 2011), § 22.021 (West Supp. 2012 ). The2 plea

- bargain in these cases entailed the State’s a greement to abandon an enhancement paragraph for each offense in exchange for appellant’s plea s of guilty

. See Shankle v. State , 119 S.W.3d 808, 813

– 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). T he trial
court accepted appellant’s pleas and found appellant guilty of the o ffenses

. The trial court then s entenced appellant to confinement for 50 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas D epartment of Criminal Justice for each offense of aggravated sexual assault and for 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Tex as Department of Criminal Justice for the offense of indecency with a child by contact, and ordered that the sentences run concurrently

. Appellant has filed notice s of appeal. We dismiss the appeal s . In a plea

- bargain case, a defendant may only appeal th ose matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial , or after getting the trial court’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). A charge

- bargain, like that entered into by the appellant and the State in these case s , w here the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for the prosecutor bringing lesser charges or agreeing to remove enhancements , is a plea

- bargain under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2. See Shankle , 119 S.W.3d at 813

– 14. An appeal must be dism issed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been

m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d).3 Here, the trial court’ s certification s are included in the record on appeal. See id

. T he trial court ’s certificati on s indicate that these are plea bargain cases and the appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports that appellant has no right of appeal

. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal , we must dismiss these appeal s . See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardl ess of the basis for the appeal.”)

. Accordingly, we reinstate and dismiss the appeal s for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot. P ER CURI A M Panel cons ists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).