C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

CHRI STOPHER CAL DERON, Ap pe lla nt,

v. TH E ST AT E O F TE XA S, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 02 58 -C R

Appea l from 168th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 20050D05388)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Christopher Calderon a

ttempts to appeal fr om a convic tion of two counts of aba ndoning or

e n d an g e r i n g a c h i l d

. A p p e l l an t w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o a j u r y t r i a l an d e n t e r e d a n e g o t i a t e d

p l e a o f g u i l t y. I n a c c or da

nc e wi th t he ple a ba rg a in, the tr ia l c ourt se nte nc e d App e lla nt t o s e rv e a

on e -ye ar t e rm

in the state jail. Appe llant f

iled notice of a

ppeal a nd the trial cour

t cer tified that Appellant ha d a rig ht to appea l matters ra ised by written motion and ruled on prior to tr ial. On appe al, Appellant r aises a sing le issue asser

ting he was de nied the ef

fec tive assistance of counse l due to a lac k of pre paration and investig ation. T h e S t ate has filed a motion to dismi ss the appea l beca use the Court lac ks jur isd ic tio n to a dd

re ss t he ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l issu e . Ap pe lla nt ha s not f

ile d a re sp on se to the State’s motion. There is no constitutional rig ht to appeal a criminal convic tion. Ph

y ne s v . S tate , 828 S.W .2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 199 2 ). A par ty may appea l only

that which the L eg islature has a uthorized. Olowo su k o v . S tate , 8 26 S.W. 2d

94 0, 94 1 ( Te x.Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); Ea de n v. Sta te , 901 S.W .2d 535, 536 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1995, no pet.) . Article 44.02 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure pr ovides that:A def endant in any

criminal ac tion has the rig ht of appe al under the rules he reina fter presc ribed, provide d, howeve r, bef ore the defe ndant who has bee n convicted upon e ith e r h is p le a

of g uil ty or ple a of no lo c on te nd e re be fo re the c ourt and the c ourt , upon the elec tion of the defe ndant, assesses punishment and the punishment does not exceed the punishment re commended by the prosec utor an d agre ed to by the defe ndant and his attorney may prosec ute his a ppeal, he must have permission of the trial court, e x cept on those matters which have bee n raised by written motion filed pr ior to t ri a l. T his art ic le in no wa y a ff e c ts a pp e a ls purs ua

nt to Ar tic le 44 .1 7 o f t

his chapte r. T EX .C ODE C R IM .P R OC .ANN . art. 44.02 (V ernon 2006)

. Con sis te nt w ithAr

tic le 44 .0 2, Te xas R

ule of Ap pe lla te Pr oc e dure 25 .2 (a )( 2) pr ov ide s th a t: A def endant in a c riminal case has the rig ht of appe al under Code of Criminal Procedur e ar

ticle 44.02 and these rules. The trial court sha ll enter a cer tification of the def endant’ s rig ht of appe al ea ch time i t en t ers a judgme nt of g uilt or other appea lable order . I n a plea barg ain ca se-- that is, a ca se in which a defe ndant’s plea of g uilty or nolo conten dere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment rec ommended by

the prosec utor and a g ree d to by the def endant- -a d ef

en dant may a p p e a l o n l y: (A ) t ho se matte rs tha

t w e re ra ise d by wr itt e n mot ion fi le d and ru le d on be fo re tr ia l; or (B ) a ft e r g e tti ngthe tr ia l c ourt ’s pe rm iss ion to a pp e a l. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)( 2). The inef fec tive assistance of counsel issue raised on appea l was not raised by written motion and rule d on prior to the guilty plea. F urther, the rec o rd does not re flec t that the trial court g ave Appell an t p e r

mi s s io nto a

p p e a l t h is is s u e . I nf

a c t, th e Co urt n o te d

a t t h e h e ar in g o nA p p e lla nt’s motion for new trial that it had not give n Appellant per mission t o appea l but Appellant had a r ight to appea l the ruling on a pretrial m otion to suppress. Appellant has not raised the suppression issue on appea l. Be cause the trial cour t did not give Appe llant permission to appea l the sole issue ra ised

on a pp e a l, w e la c k ju

ri sd ic tio n to a dd

re ss i t. A pp e lla nt h a s n ot r a ise d a

ny oth e r i ssu e c og niza

ble under Rule 25.2( a)( 2). We there fo re grant the State’ s motion and dismi ss the appea l for lac k ofjurisdiction.

J uly 8, 2009 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ. Rivera, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)