Dismiss and Opinion Filed March 6, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 19
- 01379
- CR No. 05
- 19
- 01380
- CR ROBERTO VASQUEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F19
- 30958
- H & F19
- 30959
- H

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Molberg Appellant was indicted for fr audulent use or posse ssion of ten or more but less than fifty identifying information items and unlawful use of a criminal instrument

. He pleaded guilty to each offense in exchange for the State dropping enhancement paragraph s alleging a prior felony offe nse. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt in each case but deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for two years, as agreed to by appellant and the State

. The trial court certified these were plea bargain cases and that appellant had no right of appeal. Appellant then filed t hese appeals

.– 2

–

A plea bargain is a contract between the State and the defendant. Moore v.
State , 295 S.W.3d 329, 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Once a plea agreeme nt is
finalized , the trial court must approve the terms ; at that point, the State and the defendant are entitled to the benefit of the bargain. State v. Moore , 240 S.W.3d 248, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In a plea bargain case like these , a defendant may appeal only ( 1 ) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or ( 2 ) after getting the trial court ’ s permission to appeal

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 25.2(a)(2); see T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 44.02. Here, appellant agreed to plead guilty to fraudulent use or possession of ten or more but less than fifty identifying information items (a second degree felony) and unlawful use of criminal instrument (a third degree felony) in exchange for the State dropping the enhancement paragraphs w hich would have elevated the punishment range for the offenses to those of a first and second degree felony, respectively. In addition, the State recommended appellant be p laced on deferred adjudication probation for two years , and t he trial court followed the plea bargain terms. The record supports the trial court’s certification that the cases were plea bargains and appellant ha s no right to appeal

. We dismiss these appeals.

191379f.u05 Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) /Ken Molberg// KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT ROBERTO VASQUEZ, Appellant
No. 05

- 19

- 01379

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . F19

- 30958

- H. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg, Justices Bridges and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.
Judgment entered this 6 th day of March, 2020.– 4

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT ROBERTO VASQUEZ, Appellant
No. 05

- 19

- 01380

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19

- 30959

- H. Opinion deliver ed by Justice Molberg, Justices Bridges and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.
Judgment entered this 6 th day of March, 2020.