DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 13, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00469-CR 

No. 05-22-00470-CR 

RUBEN OMAR MORENO, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Rockwall County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. CR18-2212, CR18-2213 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Kennedy 

Ruben Omar Moreno appeals his convictions for failure to identify while a 

fugitive from justice (TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.02(b), (d)) and driving while 

intoxicated (TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04) (DWI). This Court lacks jurisdiction 

over these appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

On November 20, 2018, an information was filed in each of these cases 

accusing appellant of providing a false or fictitious residence address to a peace 

officer while a fugitive and of DWI. On February 10, 2022, appellant and the State 

entered into a plea agreement in each case. The plea agreements provided that 
 –2– 

appellant would plead guilty to the charges and the prosecutor would recommend a 

sentence of nineteen days in the county jail, which was his time served, for providing 

a false address, and thirty-eight days in the county jail with nineteen days credit for 

DWI. The plea agreements informed appellant that “if the trial court sets punishment 

at or below this recommendation, all parties understand that no appeal is possible 

without the permission of the court unless based on motions previously filed.” 

Written plea admonishments advised appellant, 

If the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment 

recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by you and your 

attorney, the Court must give its permission to you before you can 

prosecute an appeal on any matter in the case except for matters raised 

by written motion filed and ruled upon prior to trial. 

The trial court’s judgment in each case shows the trial court accepted appellant’s 

guilty pleas and sentenced him to the recommended punishment. The trial court’s 

certifications of appellant’s right of appeal state, “defendant has waived the right of 

appeal.” 

A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal as set out in the Code 

of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a). Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 

provides that in “a plea-bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was 

guilty . . . and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant,” a defendant may appeal only “those 

matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,” “after 
 –3– 

getting the trial court’s permission to appeal,” or “where the specific appeal is 

expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). When an appellant 

waives his right to appeal as part of his plea bargain agreement with the State, a 

subsequent notice of appeal filed by him fails to “initiate the appellate process,” 

Lundgren v. State, 434 S.W.3d 594, 599, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), ), and “no 

inquiry into even possibly meritorious claims may be made,” Chavez v. State, 183 

S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When an appeal from a plea bargain is 

not authorized by Rule 25.2, “[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 appeal without further action, regardless of the 

basis for the appeal.” Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680. 

In each of these cases, the record shows appellant and the State agreed 

appellant would plead guilty in exchange for a specific recommended punishment. 

The documents appellant signed admonished appellant he would have no right of 

appeal if the trial court followed the punishment recommendations except for 

matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or if the trial court granted 

appellant permission to appeal. The clerk’s record does not contain any motion ruled 

on before trial, and the certifications of appellant’s right of appeal show the trial 

court did not grant appellant permission to appeal. Therefore, under Rule 25.2(a), 

appellant has no right of appeal. See Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680. 
 –4– 

Rule 25.2(d) also requires the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal if there is 

no certification from the trial court showing the defendant has the right of appeal. 

TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The certifications affirmatively show appellant did not have 

the right to appeal, and the certifications are supported by the record. Therefore, we 

must dismiss the appeals. Id.; see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). 

We requested appellant and the State to file letter briefs addressing the 

jurisdictional issue. Appellant’s counsel and the State responded that appellant has 

no right of appeal. 

We conclude we lack jurisdiction over these appeals from plea-bargained 

convictions. We dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

220469F.U05 

 

/Nancy Kennedy/

NANCY KENNEDY 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

RUBEN OMAR MORENO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-00469-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Rockwall County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CR18-2212. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Kennedy. Justices Carlyle and 

Goldstein participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered February 13, 2023 

 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

RUBEN OMAR MORENO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-00470-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Rockwall County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CR18-2213. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Kennedy. Justices Carlyle and 

Goldstein participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for 

want of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered February 13, 2023