## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No s . 07 - 13 - 00375 - CR , 07 - 13 - 00376 - CR
WILLIAM LEE MCMILLAN , JR., APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No s . 67,265 - E , 67,397 - E , Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding



### February 12, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, William Lee McMillian, Jr. , appeals two judgment s, each of which convict him of the offense of aggravated assault , includ e an affirmative finding that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon , and sentence him to twelve years ’ incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Because appellant waived his right of appeal in each cause , we will dismiss the appeal s .2

An appeal must be dismissed unless a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has been made part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). A valid waiver of appeal prevents a defendant from appealing without the trial court’s consent. Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 62 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
A defendant in a noncapital case may waive any right secured to him by law, including the right to appeal. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 1.14(a) (West 2005 ); Monreal , 99 S.W.3d at 617. A valid waiver which is voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made will preven t a defendant from appealing a conviction absent permission from the trial court. Monreal , 99 S.W.3d at 617. No attack on a waiver of the right to appeal will be entertained in the absence of factual allegations supporting a claim that the waiver was coe rced or involuntary. Ex parte Tabor , 565 S.W.2d 945, 946 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Perez v. State , 885 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1994, no pet.). Merely filing a notice of appeal is insufficient to overcome the prior waiver of appeal. Perez , 885 S.W.2d at 570.
As a condition of the plea bargain s between appellant and the State, appellant was required to waive his right of appeal. The record reflects that the terms of appellant’s plea bargain s were that he would be found guilty of the charged offense s , that affirmative deadly weapon finding s would be entered, and that he would be sentence d to twelve years’ incarceration in both causes . The judgment s reflect that the trial court accepted these plea bargains. Appellant signed waiver s of his right of appeal after sentence was imposed in each cause

.3

The trial court noted on both of the “Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” that th ese case s are “ a plea
- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal,” and that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” Based upon our review of the record, we find that appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right of appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Thus, he was required to obtain the trial court’s permission to appeal. Monreal , 99 S.W.3d at 617 . Nothing in the record indicates that appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. Because appellant has n o right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. C rim. App. 2006) (en banc) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea
- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 2 5.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish.