1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_____________ __ ____ NO. 09
- 1 4
- 00 447
- CR NO. 09
- 14
- 00448
- CR NO. 09
- 14
- 00449
- CR NO. 09
- 14
- 00450
- CR NO. 09
- 14
- 00451
- CR

______________ __ ___ JAMES ARTHUR SHANE III , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 410th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 14
- 05
- 05425 CR (Count I ), 14
- 05
- 05425 CR (Count II ), 14
- 05
- 05425 CR (Count III ), 14
- 05
- 05425 CR (Count IV ), 14
- 05
- 05425 CR ( Count V )

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant James Arthur Shane , III was charged by indictment with two counts of intoxication assault, possession of prohibited weapon s , possession of a controlled substance, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Shane entered into a plea agreement with the State wherein the State recommended a2 punishment cap of twenty years imprisonment

. Shane entered a p lea of guilty to each charge

. Shane also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph all eging a prior felony conviction, and the trial court found the enhancement true.
T he tr ial court found Shane guilty of both counts of intoxication assault and sentenced Shane to sixteen years’ confinement for each conviction. The trial court found Shane guilty of the offense of possession of a prohibited weapon and sentenced Shane to ten yea rs’ confinement

. The trial court also found Shane guilty of the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. The trial court ordered Shane’s sentences to run

co ncurrently. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt to the charge of possession of a controlled substance but withheld that finding and placed Shane on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. Shane filed notices of appeal for each case . 1
Shane ’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable grounds t o be advanced in this appeal. Counsel

1 Shane submitted separate briefs for each cause. Because the issues brought forward in each case are the same, we dispose of all appeals in a single opinion.3 provided Shane with a copy of this brief. We advised Shane of his right to file a pro se response, but we received no response from Shane

. We have reviewed the appellate record and conclude that we l ack jurisdiction over Shane’s appeals. The trial court’s certification states that this is not a plea

- bargain case, but the record reflects otherwise. The reporter ’ s record shows that the State recommended punishment be capped at twenty years imprisonment for each charge made against Shane in exchange for Shane’s agreement to enter a plea of guilt y to each charge . The trial court assessed punishment in accordance with the cap recommended by the State

. Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a defendant in a plea

- bargain case may appeal only “those matters that were raised b y written motion filed and rule d on before trial,” or “after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2 defines a plea bargain case as “a case in which a defendant’ s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant [

. ] ” Id

. Thus, a n agreement to a punishment cap is a plea

a greement within the meaning of Rule 25.2

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Shankle v. State , 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (en banc) ; Lemoins
v. State , 37 S.W.3d 556, 557

- 59 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2001 , no pet.)

. After4 reviewing the appellate reco rd, w e conclude that t h e trial court’s certifications do not accurately reflect the trial court proceedings. Because the certification is contrary to the record, it is defective. See Dears
v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that a certification is defective if it is correct in form but “when compared with the record before the court, proves to be inaccurate”) ; see also Saldana v. State , 161 S.W.3d 763, 764 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2005, no pet.) (“Despite the trial court ’s certification, the Rule 25.2 requirements recited in a certification must be true and supported by the record.”) . The re is nothing in the record to support a finding that Shane filed any written pretrial motions that could be appealed , or that he otherw ise received the trial court’s permission to appeal from a plea bargain. Therefore, Shane d id not have the right to appeal his convictions

. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also Chavez v. S tate , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (en banc)

. DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

.

_____________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice5 Submitted on June 12 , 20 1 5 Opinion Delivered August 26, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger , and Johnson , JJ.