In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00184-CR

YOSENDER ANTONIO MALDONADO-ROJAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1927026

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Yosender Antonio Maldonado-Rojas was indicted for engaging in organized criminal 

activity. Pursuant to a charge bargain with the State, Maldonado-Rojas pled guilty to the lesserincluded offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information.1

 Further, pursuant to 

Section 12.45 of the Texas Penal Code, Maldonado-Rojas admitted his guilt on two unadjudicated 

offenses, and prosecution for those offenses was thereafter barred. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 

§ 12.45. 

“Charge-bargaining involves questions of whether a defendant will plead guilty to the 

offense that has been alleged or to a lesser or related offense, and of whether the prosecutor will 

dismiss, or refrain from bringing, other charges.” Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2003). Under the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ reasoning in Shankle and its 

progeny, “charge-bargaining affects punishment . . . [and] effectively puts a cap on punishment at 

the maximum sentence for the charge that is not dismissed.” Id. Accordingly, the charge bargain 

constitutes a plea agreement for purposes of Rule 25.2(a)(2). See id.; Kennedy v. State, 297 S.W.3d 

338, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Because this is a charge-bargain case, Maldonado-Rojas has the right to appeal under Rule 

25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure2 those matters that were raised by written 

 1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51(b).

2

The Texas Legislature has granted a very limited right of appeal in plea bargain cases. Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure details that right as follows:

In a plea bargain case—that is, 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—a defendant may appeal only:
3

motion filed and ruled on before trial, or after receiving the trial court’s permission to appeal. See

Kennedy, 297 S.W.3d 340–41; Shankle, 119 S.W.3d at 812–13. 

The clerk’s record filed in this matter contains no written motions filed by MaldonadoRojas and ruled on before trial. Further, there is no indication in the record that Maldonado-Rojas 

obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. To the contrary, the trial court’s certification of 

Maldonado-Rojas’ right of appeal indicates that this is a plea bargain case in which MaldonadoRojas has no right of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

this Court is required to dismiss an appeal if, as in this case, the trial court’s certification indicates 

no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

On September 10, 2019, we informed Maldonado-Rojas of the apparent defect in our 

jurisdiction over his appeal and afforded him an opportunity to respond and, if possible, cure such 

defect. Although Maldonado-Rojas filed a response to our letter, that response did not resolve the 

jurisdictional defect that prevents us from hearing his appeal. 

 (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before 

trial, [or]

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
4

Because Maldonado-Rojas has no right of appeal as a result of his plea bargain with the 

State and because the trial court’s certification correctly indicates that Maldonado-Rojas is without 

a right of appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: October 10, 2019

Date Decided: October 11, 2019

Do Not Publish