Opinion issued December 29, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 5
- 00 608
- CR

——————————— CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON GARCIA , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 1 8 5 th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 1 4 39708

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Christopher Houston Garcia, proceeding pro se and incarcerated , pleaded guilty to the first

- degree felony offense of deliver y of a controlled substance, namely, methamphetamine , weighing more than 4 grams and less than 200 grams , with the agreed recommendation that he receive ten years’ confinement. See T EX
.2

H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112(a), ( d ) (West Supp. 2014 ) . On June 2 , 2015, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at ten years’ confinement, in accordance with the terms of his plea bargain with the State. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.32(a) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court certified that this is a plea

bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. Nevertheless, a ppellant timely file d a pro se notice of appeal , acknowledging that his punishment did not exceed the amount recommended by the State and agreed to by appellant. However, appellant contends that his guilty plea does not preclude appealing any rulings on pretrial motions or claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective . W e dismiss this ap peal for want of jurisdiction

. An app eal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been m ade part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2 (d) ; see Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. The trial court’s certification , wh ich is included in the clerk’s record , states t hat this is a plea

- bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). In a plea

- bargain case where a defendant pleaded guilty and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant , as here, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX
. C O DE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 44.02 (West Supp. 2014);3

T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). T here were no adverse rulings on pretrial motions filed by appellant’ s trial counsel in the underlying trial court cause number 1439708

. In a ddition, the c lerk’s record contains waiver of constitutional rights, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession p aper s indicating that appellant pleaded guilty to the delivery of a controlled substance, namely, methamphetamine, weighing more than 4 grams and less than 200 grams , in exc hange for the State’s recommendation that his punishment be assessed at ten years’ confinement, and the standard waiver of his right of appeal if the trial court accepted the plea

- bargain agreement. The judgment of conviction also reflects that the trial court accepted the plea

- bargain agreement because t he court assessed appellant’s punishment at ten years’ confinement. Thus, the record supports the trial court’s ce rtification that this is a plea

- bargain case and that the trial court did not give its per mission to appeal on any matters, including any rulings on pretrial motions. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2); Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 615. Because appellant has no right of appeal in this plea

- bargain case , we must dismiss th i s appeal without further action

. See Menefee v. State , 287 S.W.3d 9, 12 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ( “A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.” ); see4

also Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist. , 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining purpose of certif ication requirements is to resolve cases that have no right of appeal qu ickly without expense of appointing appellate counsel , preparing reporter’s record or preparing appellate brief). CONCLUSION Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss a ny pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2 (b).