Opinion filed January 19 , 202 3



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ _

__ _

____ 

### No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 3 45

- CR

____ __ _____ 

### JESUS DANIEL HERNANDEZ , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 238 th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR56108

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant , Jesus Daniel Hernandez , entered into a plea agreement with the State . Pursuant to that plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to the secon d

- degree felony offense of burglary of a habitation , pled true to an enhancement allegation , and waived his right to appeal

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 30.02 (West 2019 ). T he trial cou rt assessed Appellant’s punishment , in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, at confinement for five years in the Institutional Division of the2 Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal

. T his court notified A ppellant and his court

- appointed trial attorney by letter that the t rial c ourt had certified that Appellant waived his right of appeal and that th is is a plea bargain case in which Appellant has no right of appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d) ; see also T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art

. 44.02 (West 2018 )

. We requested that A ppellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal

. Appellant subsequently filed a timely response, asserting that he had filed pretrial motions that were not ruled upon and that he had filed a motion to quash the indictment, which he claims was erroneously denied by the trial court. In his
response, Appellant also request ed a bond, mandamus relief regarding jail

- time credit , 1 and habeas relief. In a plea bargain case, Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure limits a criminal defendant’s right to appeal. Rule 25.2 provides that, in a plea bargain case in which the punis hment does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal , or (C) where t he specific appeal is expressly authorized by
statute .” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2)

. Rule 25.2 also provides that , in the absence of the trial court’s certification showing that the defendant has a right of appeal, the appeal “must be dismissed

. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2( d). We note that Rule 25.2 does not permit a plea

- bargaining defendant to appeal matters related to the voluntariness of the plea bargain

— unless the defendant has obtained the trial court’s permission

1 We note that, if Appellant is entitled to additional jail

- time credit, the appropriate means for Appellant to obtain such relief is to file in the trial court a motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment. See Ex parte Ybarra , 149 S.W.3d 147, 148

– 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).3 to appeal. See Cooper v. State , 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2001); Carender v. State , 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, no pet.). Here, Appellant did not obtain the trial court’s permission to appeal. And even if the trial court did deny Appellant’s pretrial motion to quash , we observe that (1 ) the plea papers show that Appellant waived his right of appeal and (2) the trial court’s certification specifically states that Appellant has no right of appeal

. Thus,
t he documents on file in th is appeal show that Appellant entered into a plea bargain , that h is punishment wa s assessed in accordance with the plea bargain , that he waived h is right of appeal , and that he has no right of appeal

. T he plea agreement , the waiver of any right to appeal, and t he trial court’s certification w ere each signed by Appellant, Appellant ’s trial counsel , and the judge of the trial court. T he documents on file in this court sup port the trial court’s certification

. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 , 613

– 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. Accordingly , we must dismiss t h is appeal without further action. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 6 75, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). This Court ’s Ruling We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PER CURIAM

January 19, 2023 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Trott er , J., and W illiams , J.