## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 18 - 00143 - CR

KEVIN L. JONES APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1531 264D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A fter pleading guilty pursuant to a plea bargai n, a ppellant Kevin L. Jones attempts to appeal his conviction for possessin g less than one gram of methamphetamine

. The trial court sentenced Jones in accordance with the parties’ agreement and certifi ed that Jones has no right to appeal. See Tex. Code Cri m. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (West 20 18 ); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 After the plea hearing, Jones timely filed on March 27, 2018, a pro se notice of appeal. See Te x. R. App. P. 25.2(c), 26.2(a)(1 ). On April 12, 2018, we notified Jones that the trial court ha d certified that he had no right to appeal and that we would dismiss his appeal unless on or before April 23, 2018, he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44. 3. After the letter we sent Jones was returned because he was no longer in the Tarrant County Jail, we
sent the same notice to his penitentiary address on May 3, 2018, and reset the deadline to file a response to May 14, 2018. On May 14, 2018 , Jones filed a pro se response, but two days later , he filed a pro s e motion requesting, among other relief, to extend the time to file a response. On May 30, 2018, we granted Jones’s motion to the exten t it sought
additional time to file a response and extended the ti me t o June 14, 2018 , but we
denied all other requested relief . On May 31, 2018, Jones filed another response
that elaborated on his earlier one

. The record does not show that the punishment the trial court assess e d
exceed ed the prosecutor’s recommended

— and Jones’s agreed

- to

— punishment ; additionally, the record and Jones’s responses do not show that Jones want s to appeal a matter that he raised by written motion that he filed and the trial court ruled on before trial or that the trial court granted Jones per mission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Thus, in accordance with the trial court’s3 certification, we dismiss the appeal. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez , 183 S.W.3d at 680

. Along with the appeal, we dismiss all pending
motions as w ell

. 3

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr ELIZABETH KERR JUSTICE
PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 2, 2018

2 We have no authority to do anything but dismiss. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 6 80 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) . Jones m ight, though, have other avenues of relief. See Greenberg v. State , No. 02

- 17

- 00297

- CR, 2018 WL 2142770, at *1 n.4 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 10 , 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; see also Tex. R . App. P. 23.2; In re Gomez , 268 S.W.3d 262 , 26 4 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2008, no pet.) (“[T]he high court has emphasized that nunc pro tunc is the only means by which a defendant can obtain relief from the omission of back

- time credit from a judgment, at le ast until the defendant is confined beyond his cor rect maximum discharge date.”).

3 On June 13, 2018, Jones filed a motion to extend time to file a response to a nonexistent Anders brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (19 67)

.