The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 1, 2015

No. 04-15-00382-CR

Joshua Allen SCHOPPMAN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR0695

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Joshua Allen Schoppman entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which he 

agreed to plead nolo contendere to assault on a public servant – bodily injury. The terms of the 

agreement provided that punishment was to be assessed at ten years’ confinement, to run 

concurrently with the punishment in two other cases, and imposition of a $1,500 fine. The State 

agreed to recommend community supervision. The plea agreement further stated:

All parties understand and agree that the terms, conditions and length of []

community supervision or deferred adjudication are to be determined and 

assessed solely within the Court’s discretion. It is further understood and agreed 

by the parties that in the event the Court assessed terms, conditions and or a 

length of supervision . . . different from those agreed to by the parties, that such 

difference shall not constitute grounds for setting aside the Defendant’s plea in 

this cause.

The flowing statement appears beneath the parties’ signatures on the plea bargain form: 

NOTE: The parties are not allowed to make binding agreements regarding the 

length of community supervision or the terms and conditions of community 

supervision, which are totally dependent upon the Court’s discretion. The 

following recommendations do not constitute part of the formal plea agreement. 
The document then indicates the State recommended the period of community supervision be six 

years and that appellant be placed in the Treatment Alternative to Incarceration Program. 

The trial court found Schoppman guilty and sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration.

The court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Schoppman on community 

supervision for a period of ten years. The court signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Schoppman 

filed a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal, asserting the trial court failed to comply with 

the plea bargain. The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) certification 

and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that Schoppman does 

not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding 

that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification 

is accurate). 

This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the 

right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Schoppman is 

hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed unless an amended certification showing 

he has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by July 22, 2015. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on 

merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for 

publication).

We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further 

order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court 

reporter. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court