## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00100

- CR

DENEEKO TRAVON SHAVERS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 22F1020

- 102

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

Deneeko T ravon Shavers pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in an amount

greater than four grams but less than two hundred gram s

. 1 Pursuant to a plea bargain with the

State, Shavers was sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. 2 The trial court certified that this
was a plea

- bargain case and that Shavers had no right of appeal; nonetheless, Shavers , acting pro

se, filed a notic e o f appeal. Because we find that we are without jurisdiction over this case due

to the plea bargain between Shavers and the State, we dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction. 3
The Texas Legislatur e has granted a very limited rig ht of appeal i n plea

- barg ain cases.
Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure details that right as follows:

(2) . . . . In a plea bargain case

— that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo conte ndere and the punishment did n ot exceed the punishment re c ommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant

— a defendant may appeal only:
(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,
(B) after getting th e trial court’s permission to a ppeal , or
(C) where the s pe ci fic appeal is expressly authorized by statute

.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). There is no indication in the record before this Court that Shavers
either (1) filed a motion that was ruled on befor e trial or (2) obtained the tri al court’s per mission

1 T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 48 1

. 11 5 (d) ( S upp.)

.

2 Shaver s ’s punishment range was enhanced to that of a first

- degree felony

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.42(b)

.

3 In conjunction with the plea agreement , Shavers waived his right of appeal

. I n addition, Shavers ’s n otice of appeal

was un ti mely.3

to a pp ea l. To the contrary, the trial court’s certification of Shavers ’s right of appeal indicates
that he has no right of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure, th is Court is required to dismiss an appeal if, as in this ca se , the trial court’s
certification indicates no right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d).

We informed Shavers of this apparent defect in our jurisdiction over his appeal and

afforded him an opportunity to respond and, if possible, cure such defect

. A lthough Shavers
responded to our letter, his response failed to convince this Court that it has jurisdiction over this
attempted appeal.

Because Shavers has no right of appeal due to h is plea bargain with th e Stat e and b e c a u s e

t he trial cour t’s certif

ic ation correctly indicates that he is without a right of appeal, we dismiss
this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jeff Rambin Justice

Date Submitted: May 3 1 , 2023 Date Decided: June 1, 2023

Do No t Publi sh