## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________

________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00200

- CR

________ ____ _______________

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F21

- 2054

- 462 Before Womack, W a llach, a n d Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### E LMER 

### L

AREZ



### - R IVERO 

### , Appellant V 

### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM O PINION Appellant E lmer Larez

- Rivero attemp ts to a ppea l from his October 1 5, 2021 conviction for indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21 .11. Because Larez

- Rivero did not file a motion for new trial, hi s notice of appeal was due no later t han November 15, 2021. See Tex . R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Larez

- Rivero ’s notice of appeal , how ever, was postmarked on November 18, 2021

— three days after
t he deadline

— and it was file

- stamped by the trial

- court clerk on December 6, 2021

— twen ty
- one days afte r the deadline
. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b); Taylor v. State , 424 S.W.3d 39, 46 (Tex. Cr i m. App. 2014). Larez

- Ri vero ’ s ability to appeal his conviction run s into further problems because it was made pursuant to a plea bargain. Lar ez - Rivero pleaded guil ty to the underlying offense a nd signed a waiver of his right to appeal , and the t rial court sentenced him accord in gly. The trial court ’ s certification of hi s right to appeal states that the case “ is a plea

- bargain ca se, and the defendant has NO right of appeal ” and that “ the defendant has waived the right of appeal. ” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2 (a )( 2). On March 22, 2022, we notified Larez

- Rivero that it appeared we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed and because the trial court ’ s certifica tion reflected that he had no righ t of appeal. 1 We advised him that this appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party des iring to

1 Prior to our Marc h 22, 2022 let ter, w e quest ione d our jurisdiction over this appeal in two other letters to Larez

- Rivero
.3

continue the appeal filed a response show ing grounds for contin uing the appeal on or before A pril 1 , 2022. See Te x. R. App. P. 44.3. Although we received a response fro m Larez

- Rivero, it does not address our jurisdictional concerns or show groun ds for contin uing the appeal. A t imely notice of appeal is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Ol ivo v. St ate , 918 S.W.2d 519 , 5 22

– 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Although we may extend the jurisdictional deadline if a notice of appeal is fi led in the t rial court within fifteen days of its due date, we may not do so in the absence of a motion requesting

s uc h relief. See Tex. R. App . P . 26.3; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522 ; Kessinger v. S t ate , 26 S.W.3d 725, 726 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref ’ d) (per cur

iam)
. Here, Larez

- Rivero did not file a motion for extension of time wi th his untimely notice of appeal
. Moreover, th e right to app eal a conviction arising fro m a plea

- bargain

a gre ement is limited to matters that were raised by written motio n filed and ruled upon before trial or to cases in which the appe llant obtained the trial court ’ s permission to app eal. See Tex. Co de Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 44.02; Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court ’ s certification in this case does not show that Larez

Rive ro was granted permission to appeal, and the record does not indicate that Larez

Rivero intends to challenge a ruling on a wr itte n motion f

iled and ruled on before he plea ded guilty. Thus, because Larez

- Ri vero ’ s appeal was untimely , and in a cco rdance4

with the trial court ’ s certification , we d ismiss Larez

- R ivero ’ s appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2( d), 43.2 (f) ; O livo , 918 S.W.2d at 522

– 23
. /s/ Dana Womack Da na Womack Justi ce Do N o t Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) Delivered : April 21, 2022