Opinion i ssued July 19 , 201 2
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 1 2
- 0 0 3 77
- CR

____________ WILLIAM KINCAID, JR. , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 33 9 t h District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No
. 1236182

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A fter a grand jury returned a true bill of indictment against him for the felony offense of aggravated assault, 1 a ppellant , William Kincaid, Jr. , pleaded guilty to the
misdemeanor offense of deadly conduct. 2 On February 28, 2012, t he trial court

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011 ).

2 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.05(a) (West 2011 ).2 found appellant guilty and, in accordance with the t erms of his ple a agreement with
the State , sentenced him to confinement for one year in the county jail

. On April 10, 2012 , a ppellant filed a pro se notice of appeal

. In his notice, a ppellant states that he “did not wave [sic] his rights to appeal pretrial documents” and requests to “be heard on all pretrial documents.” Appellant did not file a motion for new trial or a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 26.2(a)(2), 26.3(b); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (requiring both notice of appeal and motion for extension to be filed within 15 days of original due date for notice of appeal). Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or before March 29,
2012

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a) (1)

. A notice of appeal that com plies with the requirements of R ule 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. S ee S laton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1998). The court of criminal appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See
Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210. Because appellant’s April 10, 2012 notice of appeal was untimely, 3 we have no basis for jurisdictio n over this appeal. See Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523.

3 The record contains no envelope or postmark date for a ppellant’s notice of appeal, which contains no certificate of service and is not dated. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.3 Further, i n a plea bargain case

— that is, a case in which a defendant ’ s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant

— a defendant may appeal only t hose matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before
trial , or after getting the trial court ’ s permission to appeal. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN . art. 44.02 (West 2006 ); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be
dismissed 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) ; Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. Here , the trial court’ s certification is included in the record on appeal. T he
trial court ’s certification states t hat this is a plea

- bargained case and that the appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). T he record reflects that appe llant pleaded guilty and that t he trial court assessed the punishment recommended by the State and to which appellant had agreed. See Shankle v. State , 119 S.W.3d 808, 813

– 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ( holding that charge

- bargain constitutes punishment recommended by prosecutor and agreed to by defendant)

.
9.2(b), 26.2(a) , 26.3; Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Further, appellant has provided no evidence to show that he delivered his notice of appeal to jail officials by March 29, 2012, which was 12 days prior to the date the notice of appeal was file

- stamped

. Se e Campbell v. State , 320 S.W.3d 338, 344 (Tex. C rim. App. 2010) (“We hold that the pleadings of pro se inmates shall be deemed filed at the time they are delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk.”).4 Although the record contains matters raised by written motion filed before trial, the
trial court did not rule on those motions , 4 and a ppellant does not have the trial

court ’ s permission to appeal. S ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). Therefore, the record supports the trial court’s certification, appellant has no right of appeal, and we must dismiss this appeal “without further action

. ” Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ; see Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 615. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
P ER CURI A M
Panel consists of Justice s Higley, Sharp, and Huddle

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

4 The record does contain orders related to pretrial bail and an “Order Grantin g Consolidation.” But a ny appeal from the pre trial bail orders would be moot and the court’s order on the State’s motion to consolidate is nil, because the motion effectively consolidated the cases upon its filing without the need for a court order. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 3.02(b) (West 2011 ) (granting State right to join multiple offenses arising from single criminal action by filing notice of joinder, subject to defendant’s right to severance) ; Freeman v. State , 828 S.W.2d 179, 181

– 82 (Tex. App.

— Hous ton [14th Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d) (“It is . . . axiomatic that the issue of bail being set on a complaint is a moot issue after an appellant is convicted.”)

.