# Fourt **h Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas** 

September 1, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00384

- CR

Jose Andres ROMERO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court No. 7972 Honorable Albert D. Pattillo , III , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court signed a judgment of conviction indicating that appellant Jose Andres Romero had pleaded guilty to the cha rged offense in the underlying case, and appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. The clerk’s record shows the trial court signed a certification stating the underlying case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the de fendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

This court has a duty to examine the record to determine whether the trial c ourt’s certification of defendant’s right to appeal is accurate. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614

– 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Generally, this review involves an examination of the clerk’s record to determine whether the punishment assessed by the tri al court exceeds the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02; Shankle v. State , 119 S.W.3d 808, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Here, because the clerk’s record does not establish th at the punishment assessed by the trial court does not exceed the punishment recomm ended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant, we ordered the court reporter to file the reporter’s record of any hearings related to appellant’s guilty plea. The

r eporter’s record, which was filed on August 29, 2022, shows that appellant agreed t o plead guilty in exchange for the State’s agreement to: (1) waive two enhancement allegations; and (2) recommend that appellant’s sentences run concurrently rather than con secutively. The reporter’s record further shows that the trial court confirmed with appellant and his appointed counsel that these provisions were part of the plea agreement. Finally, the reporter’s record shows thatappellant stated that he understood tha t he was waiving his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement.

Based on these facts, the reporter’s record appears to support the trial court’s certification that appellant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Harper v. State , 567 S.W.3d 450, 454

– 55 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) (holding that Rule 25.2 app lies to plea agreements “[w]here a charge bargain effectively caps the maximum punishment”). Accordingly, appellant is given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursua nt to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended cert ification showing that appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by October 3, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S. W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on
meri ts , No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the court. We further OR DER the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order o n the attorneys of record and the court reporter.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affi xed the seal of the said court on this 1st day of September, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court