Motion to Dismiss Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion 

filed May 2, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00442-CR

TYQUAN DENNIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 482nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1682803

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The 

record before this court contains two certifications of the defendant’s right of 

appeal. 

On May 4, 2022, Appellant signed a judicial confession and agreed to waive 

any right of appeal in exchange for the State giving up its right to a jury trial. The 

first certification contained in the record was signed by the trial court on May 4, 
2

2022, and states that this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right 

of appeal. The judgment, signed May 26, 2022, states “APPEAL WAIVED, NO 

PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.” However, the record also contains a

second certification signed by the trial court on June 16, 2022, stating that this is 

not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal. 

On October 25, 2022, we granted the State’s motion to abate this appeal for 

a corrected certification of the defendant’s right of appeal. In accordance with our 

October 25, 2022 order, the trial court conducted a hearing and a record of that 

hearing has been filed in this court. The trial court found the second certification, 

signed on June 16, 2022, “was signed in error.” Further, the trial court found as 

follows:

The Court has no record or recollection of this document 

having been presented and the Court finds that it made no exception to 

the initial paperwork that was filed on May the 4th of 2022 reflecting 

that Mr. Dennis had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived 

his right of appeal being that the case was a plea bargain and he had 

no right of appeal.

The Court concludes that Mr. Ty’Quan Dennis, on May the 4th 

of 2022, present before the Court, did knowingly, voluntarily, and

intelligently waive his right of appeal.

The Court also concludes that the State of Texas, in providing a 

benefit to Mr. Dennis such as dismissing the case -- an additional case

that was pending before the Court, and not going forward with the 

right to a jury trial, was a benefit provided to Mr. Dennis and, 

therefore, this was a plea bargain with sentencing done by the Court.

Appellant’s testimony from the hearing also reflects that he pleaded guilty to have 

“a chance of getting probation.” In exchange for Appellant’s waiver of his right to 

appeal, the State consented to Appellant’s waiver of his right to jury trial. Courts 

previously have held that such a waiver is valid if there was consideration. See 

Jones v. State, 488 S.W.3d 801, 807–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Ex parte 
3

Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Lopez v. State, 595 

S.W.3d 897, 900 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020). Accordingly, the 

record reflects we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See, e.g., Theus v. State, 524 

S.W.3d 765, 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“Appellant’s 

notice of appeal, coming after entry of a plea bargain agreement and his waiver of 

the right to appeal, did not trigger this court’s jurisdiction.”).

On December 20, 2022, we issued an order reinstating the appeal. The order 

states that “[t]he appeal is subject to dismissal without further notice for want of 

jurisdiction unless appellant demonstrates, within 21 days of this letter, that the 

court has jurisdiction.” Appellant filed a response to the court’s December 20, 

2022 order. The response does not demonstrate any grounds supporting an 

exercise of our jurisdiction with respect to this appeal. 

The State also filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that we lack jurisdiction 

because the record reflects that Appellant has no right of appeal. For the reasons 

delineated above, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).