### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00410
- CR

Joseph Albert Borgas , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY NO. CR26,806, THE HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N & O R D E R
PER CURIAM
In January 2021, Joseph Albert Borgas pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court placed him on deferred

- adjudication community supervision. See Tex . Penal Code § 22.02(a)(2). In April 2021 , the State filed a m otion to
p roceed with adjudication, alleging that Borgas violated the cond ition s of his probation . Borgas filed a plea of “ true ” and entered into a plea agreement as to the State ’ s motion to p roceed, but

n either document address es his right of appeal. During a hearing on the State ’ s motion , the trial
court admonished Borgas that he could “ not appeal this cause without [th e trial co urt ’s ] permission,” 1 accepted Borgas ’ s plea of true, found the S tate ’ s allegations t rue, revoked

1 Borgas agreed with the trial court ’ s understanding as to the plea agreement on the motion to proceed with the adjudication of gu ilt.2 Borgas ’ s probation, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to eight years ’ imprisonment. Borgas now seeks to appeal the trial court ’ s July 2 2 , 20 2 1 judgment adjudicating guilt

. The rules of appellate procedure require a trial court ’ s certificat ion of the defendant ’ s right to appeal “ each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. ”
See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). When determining whether an appellant in a criminal case has the right to appeal, we exam i ne the trial court ’ s cer tification for defectiveness, defined as “ a certification which is correct in form but which, when compared to the record before the court,
p roves to be inaccurate. ” Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2005). If t he certification appears to be defective, we must obtain a correct certification. Id . at 614

- 15. Here,
t he trial court ’ s certification states that (1) this is a plea

- bargain case and Borgas has no right of appeal, and (2) Borgas has waived the right of a ppeal. But a defendant may appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 42A.108(b), .755(e); see also Hargesheimer v. State , 182 S.W.3d 906, 9 1 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ( holding that “ R ule 25.2(a)(2) extends only to appeals f rom the initial plea of guilty in exchange for deferred adjud ication, and not to appeals from the proceeding on the motion to adjudicate guilt ” ) ; Gutierrez v. State , 108 S.W.3d 304, 309

- 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ( “ In the context of revocation proceedings, the legislature has not authorized binding plea agreements, has not required the court to inquire into the existence of a plea agreement or admonish the defendant pursuant to [Article] 26.13, and has not provided for withdrawal of a plea after sentencing. ” )

. Given the apparent di screpancy between the certification and the record , w e abate th is appeal and remand th is cause to the trial court for entry of a corrected certification addressing Borgas ’ s r ight of appeal from the judgment adjudicating his guilt. See Tex. R. App.
P. 34.5 (c); 37.1 ; Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614 (stating that appellate courts have authority under3 Rules of Appellate Procedure “ to obtain another certificat ion, whenever appropriate ” ). The district court clerk is instructed to file with thi s Court a supplemental cl erk’s record containing th at corrected certification no later than Ma y 1 9 , 20 22

. It is ordered on April 19 , 20 22.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith Abated a nd Remanded Filed: April 19, 2022 Do Not Publish