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 TE XAS, 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 convicti ons for failure to identify while a fugitive from justice (T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 38.02(b), (d)) and driving while intoxicated (T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 49.04) (DWI). This Court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. Accordin gly, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. On November 20, 2018, an informatio n 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, a ppellant and the State entered into a plea agreement in each ca se. The plea agreements provided that–2– appellant would plead guilty to the char ges and the prosecutor would recommend a sentence of nineteen days in the county ja il, which was his time served, for providing a false address, and thirty-ei ght days in the county jail w ith nineteen days credit for DWI. The plea agreements informed appellant that “if the trial court sets punishment at or below this recommendation, all par ties understand that no appeal is possible without the permission of the court unle ss based on motions previously filed.” Written plea admonishment s 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 tria l court accepted appellant’s guilty pleas and sentenced him to the r ecommended 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 ri ght 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 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 ex ceed 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 be fore trial,” “after–3– getting the trial court’s permission to app eal,” 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 hi s plea bargain agreement with the State, a subsequent notice of appeal filed by him fa ils 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). Wh en 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-bar gained 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 s hows appellant and the State agreed appellant would plead guilty in exchange for a specific recommended punishment. The documents appellant signe d admonished appellant he would have no right of appeal if the trial court followed th e punishment recommendations except for matters raised by written motion and ruled on be fore 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.
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). The certifications affirm atively show appellant did not have the right to appeal, and the certifications are supported by th e 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 brie fs addressing the jurisdictional issue. Appella nt’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 a ppeals for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 220469F.U05 / Nanc y Kenned y/ 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