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 Co u nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1682803

MEMORANDUM O PINION App ellant was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Th e record before this court contain s two certifications of the defendant ’ s right o f appeal.
On May 4, 2022, Appellant si gn e d a judicial confession and agreed to waive any right of appeal in exchange fo r the State giving up its right to a j ury 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 p lea ba r gain case and that the de fendant has no right of appeal. The judgment, signed May 26, 2022, states “ APPEAL WAIVED, NO
PERMISSION TO APPEAL GR ANTED. ” However, t he record also contain s a second certification signed by the trial court on June 16, 2022, s ta t ing 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 appea l for

a corrected certification of the de fendant ’ s right of appeal. In accordance with our
Octob er 25, 2022 order , t he trial court conducted a hearing and a record of tha t
h earing has been filed in this c ou rt. The trial court found the second certificati on, signed on June 16, 2022, “ was signed in error. ” Further, the trial court found as
follows:

The C o urt has no record or recollection of this document having been presente d and the Court finds that it made n o exception to the initial paperwork that was filed on May the 4th of 2022 reflecting that Mr. Dennis had knowingl y, voluntarily, and intelligentl y w aived his right of appeal being that the case was a plea bargain and he had no right of appeal. The Court c oncludes 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 di sm issing 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 provi de d to Mr. Dennis and, therefore, this was a plea bargain with sentencing done by the Court. Appellant ’ s tes ti mony from the hearing also reflects that he pleaded guilty to have

“ a chance of getting probati on. ” I n exchange for A ppellant’s waiver of his rig ht to
ap peal, the State consented to A ppel la nt’s waiver of his right to jury trial. Courts previously have held that such a waiver is valid if t here was consideration. See
Jones v. State , 488 S.W.3d 801, 807

– 08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Ex parte3

Broadway , 3 01 S.W.3d 694, 699 ( Tex. C rim. App. 2009) ; Lopez v. St at e , 595 S.W.3d 897, 900 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020)

. Accordingly, t he record reflects we lack jurisdiction over this appeal

. See, e.g. , Theus v. State , 524 S.W.3d 765, 766 (Tex. App.

— Housto n [ 14th Dist.] 2017, n o pe t.) ( “ 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 re instating the appea l

. The order
states that “ [t]he ap peal 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. ” Appe llant filed a response to the court ’ s Decem be r 20,
2022 order. T h e response does not demonstrate an y 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 reco r d reflects that Appe ll a nt 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. 4 7 .2(b).