DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 15, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-01048-CR No. 05-21-01049-CR No. 05-21-01050-CR No. 05-21-01051-CR No. 05-21-01052-CR No. 05-21-01053-CR TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F21-11861-U, F20-12281-U, F20-12361-U, F20-12362- U, F20-72038-U & F20-72174-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Tony Donald Bobillo appeal s his convictions for third degree felony theft of property valued between $30, 000 and $150,000, three state jail felony offenses of credit/debit card abuse, and two state jail fe lony thefts of property valued between $2500 and $30,000. T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. §§ 31.03(e)(4), (5), 32.31(d). Each state jail felony was enhanced by two prior st ate jail felony convictions, making the punishment range for those five offenses the same as the punishment range for the–2– third degree felony theft offense, i.e., a “ter m of not more than 10 years or less than two years.” Id . §§ 12.34, 12.425(a). The trial court assessed punishment at five years for each offense, to be served concurrently . Appellant then appealed his convictions. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss these appeals. After reviewing the clerk’s records, the reporter’s record, and the documents filed along with the notices of appeal , the Court had concerns regarding its jurisdiction over these appeals. We instructed the parties to file jurisdictional briefs. Appellant responded that he properly invoke d this Court’s jurisdiction by filing notices of appeal, citing Garza v. Idaho , 139 S.Ct. 738, 747 (2019). In contrast, the State agreed with this Court’s assessment th at appellant waived his right to appeal when the trial court followed the terms of hi s plea bargain agreements with the State. A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal as set out in the code of criminal procedure and the ru les of appellate procedure. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 44.02; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a). Rule 25.2 provides that in “a plea-bargain case—that is, a case in whic h a defendant’s plea was guilty . . . and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommende d by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant,” a defendant may appeal only “t hose matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,” “after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal,” or “where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). When an appellant waives his right to appeal as part of his plea bargain agreement with the State, a subseque nt notice of appeal filed by him fails to–3– “initiate the appellate proce ss,” thereby depriving this C ourt of jurisdiction over the appeal. Lundgren v. State , 434 S.W.3d 594, 599, 600 (T ex. Crim. App. 2014). Here, appellant entered into plea bargai n agreements with the State in which the State waived its right to a jury trial a nd agreed to a term of five years for each offense, to be served concu rrently. In exchange, appellant agreed to plead guilty and waive his right to appeal. The agreemen ts were signed by appellant, his legal counsel, the representative fo r the State, and the trial court. The judgments and reporter’s record show the trial court fo llowed the plea bargain agreements. The clerk’s records show there were no adverse rulings on any pretrial written motions. And each trial court’s certification of appe llant’s right to appeal states the case involves a plea bargain agreement, appella nt has no right to a ppeal, and appellant waived his right of appeal. Thus, the tria l court did not give permission to appeal. Finally, in his notice of appeal and juri sdictional letter brief, appellant did not identify any statute that expressly authoriz ed his appeals. Under these circumstances, appellant’s notices of appeal are ineffective to initiate the appella te process, and we lack jurisdiction over the appeals.–4– We dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 211048F.U05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant
No. 05-21-01048-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F21-11861-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered March 15, 2022–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant
No. 05-21-01049-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-12281-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered March 15, 2022.–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant
No. 05-21-01050-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-12361-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered March 15, 2022–8– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant
No. 05-21-01051-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-12362-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered March 15, 2022–9– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant
No. 05-21-01052-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-72038-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered March 15, 2022.–10– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant
No. 05-21-01053-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-72174-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered March 15, 2022.