Opinion issued January 1 5 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 8 - 00 4 80 - CR NO. 01 - 18 - 00481 - CR NO. 01 - 18 - 00482 - CR

——————————— PAULA SINCLAIR , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 24 0th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1 7 - DCR - 0794 5 7 , 17 - DCR - 079458 , 17 - DCR - 079460

MEMORANDUM OPINION2

Pursuant to agreements with the State, appellant, Paula Sinclair, pleaded guilty to th re e felony offenses of injury to a child , serious bodily injury
. 1 In each proceeding, the trial court accepted the plea agreement, found appellant guilty, and assessed her punishment at confinement for thirty

- five years , with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court certified that each case is a plea

- bargained case and appellant has no right of appeal. 2 Appellant filed notice s of appeal , stating that she was appealing “from the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial
. ” We dismiss the appeals. In a plea

- bargained case, a defendant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or after obtaining the trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 44.02; T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Here, the record in each proceeding does not reflect the trial court’s permission to appeal or any pretrial motions that could be appealed. And, in each proceeding, t he trial court’s certification is included in the record and states that the case is a plea

- bargained case and appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2). Each record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State ,

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.0 4(a) (1) , (b)(1), (e); T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 151.001
. 2 The trial court also certified that appellant had waived the right to appeal. A valid waiver of appeal

— one made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently

— prevents a defendant from appealing without the trial court’s consent. See Ex parte Broadway , 301 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (concluding waiver was valid when defendant waived right to appeal in exchange for recommended sentence).3

154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ; see also Es trada v. State , 149 S.W.3d 280, 28 5 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) (explaining denial of motion for new trial is not appealable in plea

- bargained case wi thout trial court’s permission) . Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must di smiss these appeals. See 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)(2), must dismiss a prohibited
a ppeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”); see, e.g. , Zendejas v. State , No. 05

- 16

- 00848

- CR, 2016 WL 6078569, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Oct. 17, 2016 , no pet. ) (mem. op., n ot designated for publication) (concluding appellant’s notice of appeal was ineffective to invoke court of appeals’ jurisdiction over matters raised in motion for new trial when he entered into plea

- bargain agreement and waived right to appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal s for want of jurisdiction. 3 We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices L loyd , Kelly, and Hightower
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2( b).

3 The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the appeal s were subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless s he filed a response showing how this Court has jurisdiction over h er appeal s . Cf. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.