Opinion issued December 17, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 5 - 00 545 - CR NO. 01 - 15 - 00546 - CR

——————————— DO MI N IQUE RASHAD HALE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 17 8th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No s . 1 441963 & 1450601 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, D omin i que Rashad Hale , proceeding pro se and incarcerated , pleaded guilty to the state
- jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance,

1 Appellate cause no. 01

- 15

- 00545

- CR; trial court cause no. 1441963. Appellate cause no. 01

- 15

- 00546

- CR; trial court cause no. 1450601.2

namely, cocaine, weighing less than one gram, with the agreed recommendation that
s he be punished with six months’ confinement in state jail in the underlying trial court cause number 1441963 on May 11, 2015
. See T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . §§ 481.115(a), (b) (West Supp. 2014 )
. Also on May 11, 2015, appellant pleaded guilty to the third

- degree felony offense of assault of a family member

— impeding breathing , with the agreed recommendation that she be punished with two years ’ prison confinement in the related underlying trial court cause number 1450601
. See T EX . P EN AL C ODE A NN . §§ 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2014). On May 12, 2015, t he trial court a ssessed appellant’s punishment at six months’ state

-

jail confinement for the cocaine possession conviction , in trial court cause number 1441963, and two years’ prison confinement for the assault conviction , in trial court cause number 1450601 , in accordanc e with the terms of h er plea bargain s with the State, to be served concurrently. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § § 12.3 4 (a) , 12.3 5 (a) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court certified that both of th e s e
case s a re plea

- bargain case s and that appellant has no right o f appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Nevertheless, a ppellant timely filed a pro se combined form notice of appeal
on May 14 , 201 5
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 6
. 2 ( a ) (1)
. Appellant’s notice of appeal acknowledg es that h er punishment did not exceed the amount recommended by the State and agreed to by appellant in each case . However, appellant ’s notice of appeal3

contends that h er guilty plea s d id not preclude appealing any rulings on pretrial motions . W e dismiss th e s e ap pe al s for want of jurisdiction
. An appeal 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 s of appellant’s right of appeal , which are includ ed in the clerk’s record in each case , state t hat th e s e are plea

- bargain case s and that appellant has no right of appeal in either case
. 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 fi led and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 44.02 (West Supp. 2014); T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record in trial court cause number 1441963 contains a waiver of consti tutional rights, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession, and admonishment papers indicating that appellant pleaded guilty to the state
- jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely, cocaine, weighing less than one gram, in ex change for the State’s recommendation that she be punished with six months’ state

- jail confinement
.4

Similarly, the clerk’s record in trial court cause number 1450601 contains a waiver of constitutional rights, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession, and admonishment papers indicating that appellant pleaded guilty to the third

- degree felony offense of assault of a family member

— impeding breathing , in exchange for the State’s rec ommendation that she be punishe d with t wo years’ prison confinement
. The re were no reporter’s record s for the plea hearing filed in either case because the admonishment papers indicate d that appellant waived her right to have those hearings recorded. Furt hermore, t he judgment s of conviction in the clerk’s record s in both cases reflect that the trial court accepted the plea

- bargain agreement s because it assessed appellant’s punishment at six months’ state

- jail confinement for the cocaine possession convicti on in trial court cause number 1441963 and two years’ prison confinement for the assault conviction in trial court cause number 1450601, to be served concurrently
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Thus, the clerk’s record s support the trial court’s certif ication s that these are plea

- bargained cases and that appellant has no right of appeal in either case, and the trial court did not give its permission to appeal on any matters, including any rulings on pretrial motions. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2); Dea rs , 154 S.W.3d at 615. Because appellant has no right of appeal in th e s e plea

- bargain ed case s , we must dismiss th e s e appeal s without further action
. See Menefee v. State , 287 S.W.3d5

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 app eal.” ); see also Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for Thirteenth Judicial Dist. , 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining purpose of certification 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 both of th ese appeal s for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). We dismiss a ny pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2 (b).