Opinion filed August 30 , 2013



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 3

- 00 2 3 5

- C R

__________ STEVEN HAMILTON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 244 th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C

- 37,598

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Steven Hamilton
, pleaded guilty to the offense of felon in possession of a firearm, and the trial court assessed punishment pursuant to the terms of a plea bargain at confinement for two years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division

. We dismis s the appeal

.2 T his court notified A ppellant by letter dated August 1 3, 2013
, that the T rial
C ourt ’s C ertification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal indicat ed that A ppellant had waived his right of appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d)

. We requested that
A ppellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. Appellant has filed a response in which he asserts that he has a right to appeal matters that were raised in a written, pretrial motion filed and ruled on before trial. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A). Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea bargain case in which the punishment does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled

on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.”
Rule 25.2(a)(2)(A) , however, does not control the outcome in this case because Appellant affirmatively waived his right to appeal. Attached to the trial court’s
certification , w hich indicat ed that Appellant had waived his right of appeal
, was a document entitled in part “WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL,” which was signed by Appellant, his trial counsel, and the judge of the trial court. In that document, Appellant affirmed that, altho ugh he had been informed of his right to appeal matters raised in a pretrial motion, he was waiving his right to appeal or file a motion for new trial. The document reads in relevant part : “ I . . . voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently WAIVE MY RIGHT T O APPEAL.” The trial court determined that Appellant’s waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily and that Appellant understood the consequences of his waiver.
T he trial court ’s certification , which was also signed by Appellant and his trial counsel, shows that A ppellant waived his right of appeal. T he documents on
file in this court sup port the trial court’s certification and show that the certification
is not defective. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

.3 Furthermore, when a defendant waives his right to appeal, he may appeal only if the trial court later gives its express permission. See Willis v. State
, 121 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Monreal v. State
, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The trial court’s certification indicate s that A ppellant was

not given permission to appeal. Because A ppellant waived his right to appeal in
this cause and because the trial court has certified that Appellant has no right of appeal , we must dismiss t h is appeal with out further action. T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 6 75, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, t h is appeal is di smissed

.

PER CURIAM

August 30, 2013 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson , J.