### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00052- CR NO. 03-12-00053- CR NO. 03-12-00054- CR
Reginald T im othy P rince, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 685 43, 6 8388 , & 683 87, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

Reg inald Prince is appea ling his convictions for eng ag ing in org anized criminal activity and two counts of burg lary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02, 71.02 (West 2011). Prince was sentenc ed by the trial court to eig hteen y ear s’ confine ment for eac h conviction, with the sentenc es to run concur rently
. I ncluded in the appellate rec ord are cer tifications from the district court conce rning Prince’s rig ht to appea l eac h of these convictions. These cer tifications state that this not a plea- barg ain case and that Prince has a rig ht to appea l. Howeve r, these cer tifications appea r to be inconsistent with other por tions of the appellate rec ord. The re cord indicates that Prince entered into a ple a bar g ain with the State in which the State ag ree d to r ecommend that Prince’s sentenc e for eac h conviction not exceed twe nty y ear s and that the sentenc es should run concur rently
. I n ex ch ang e, Prince pleade d g uilty to the threechar g es. There fore , the rec ord indicates that Prince enter ed into a plea barg ain, an d t h u s h e may

appea l only (1) “those matters that wer e raised by written motion filed and ruled on befor e trial” or (2) “ afte r g etting the trial court’s permission to a ppeal.” See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2) ( defining

1 “plea barg ain case ” as “ca se in which a defe ndant’s plea was g uilty or nolo contende re and t h e punishment did not exceed t h e p u nishment rec ommended by the prosec utor and ag ree d to by the defe ndant
. . . .”); see also W ayne v. State , 756 S.W .2d 724, 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (explaining elements of ple a bar g ain).

We are require d to examine a cer tification for defe ctiveness—“ corr ect in form but which, when compar ed t o t h e rec ord befor e the court, proves to be inacc urate ”—and to use Rule 37.1 and 34.5(c) to obtain an acc urate cer tification. Dears v. State , 154 S.W .3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c) , 37.1. Given the appar ent inconsistences betwee n the
cer tifications and the rec ord befor e us, we abate this appea l for fourtee n day s and instruct the district court to prepa

re and send to this Court amende d cer tifications that indicate whether this was in fac t a plea- barg ain case and the extent of Prince’s rig ht to appea l, if any , from the judgme nts of conviction. S e e T e x. R. A

p p . P. 2 5
. 2 ( a ) ( 2 )
. A s u

p p le me n ta l c le r

k ’ s r e c o r d c o n ta in in g th e d is tric t c o u r t’ s a me n d e d
cer tifications shall be for

war ded to the cle rk of this court no late r than August 29, 2012.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and H enson Abated Filed: August 15, 2012 Do Not Publish
I n his brief, Prince ’s counse l acknowle dg es that this a plea- barg ain ca se. 1 2