## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate D istrict of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 0002 3

- CR

_____________

____ __________

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1721864D

Bef ore Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. M emorandum Opini on by Justice Womack 

### D EBRA 

### A NTHONY 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Debra Anthony attempt s to appeal her convicti on for driving while intoxicated and felony repetition. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09. Ant hony pleaded guilty to that offense pursuant to a p lea

- bargain agreement, and the tria l court
sentenced her in accordance wit h that agreement to ei ght years ’ confinement and an $1,100 fine , with the confin ement suspended and Anthony placed on community supervision for five years. Under the writ ten plea admonishments that were signed by Anthony, Anthony waived h er right to appeal. Specifically, throu gh those written plea admonishments, Anthony stated , “ I give up and waive any and all rights of appeal in
this case. ” A nthony also stated, “ I give up and waive all pretrial mot ions that may
have bee n filed in my case. ” Consistent with Anthony ’ s plea

- bargain agreement, the

“ Trial Co urt ’ s [Amended] Certification of Defenda nt ’ s Right of Appeal ” in th is case
reflects that thi s “ i s a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal

. ” 1
See Tex. R. App . P. 25.2( a)(2), (d).
On February 23, 2023 , w e notified Anthony of the amended cer tification and
warned h er tha t we would di smiss the appeal unl ess we received a re spo n se by

1 T he t rial cour t initially signed a certi fication in which boxes were marked to indicate that (1) this “ is a plea

- bargain case, but matters were raised by w ritten motion filed and r uled on b ef

o re trial and not wi thdrawn or waived, and the defendant has th e right of appea l ” ; and (2) this “ is a ple a

- bargain case , and the defendant has NO right of appeal. ” The trial court later amended that certification , scratching out the box that had been mark e d to indicate that this “is a plea

- bargain case, but matters
we re raised by w ritten m otion filed and ruled on b efore trial and not wi thdrawn or waived, and the defendant has th e right of appeal

. ”3

March 6 , 202 3 , showing grounds for continuing the appeal

. S ee Tex. R. A pp.
P. 25.2 (a)(2 ), (d

), 44.3. While Anthony filed a respons e, it d oes not show groun ds for
continu in g the ap peal. 2 I n accordance with the trial court ’ s amended ce rtification, w e dismiss Anthony ’ s ap peal. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f ); see, e.g. , Hubatch v. S tate , No. 02

- 22

- 00 153

- C R , 20 22 WL 410541 7 , at *1 (Tex

. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 8 , 2022,

n o pet .) (mem

. op., not designated for publication)

. /s/ Da na Womack
Dana Womack Justice
Do Not Publish Te x. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delive red : June 22, 2023

2 In her respon se, Anthony claims that she inten ded to ret a in “ the right to appeal matters that were raised in writt en form and ruled on b y the trial court prior to the ple a ” and that taking away he r right to appeal would render her plea involuntary

. We disagree. As noted a bove, in the written plea admonishments , Anthony specifically stated that she was giving up and waiving “ all rights of appeal in t his case ” and “ all pretrial m otions that may have been filed in [her] case. ” An d there is nothing in the re cord

— n o reporter ’ s record was made of Anthony ’ s plea

— to i n dicate that those written waiver s were not made volunt arily. See Monreal v. Sta te , 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that a valid waiver of appeal will prevent a defendant from appealing w ithout the trial court ’ s consent ) ; Connella v. St

a te , No. 2

- 06

- 360

- CR, 2006 WL 375 140 6, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 21, 2006, no pet.) (per curiam

) (mem. op., not designated for publ ication) (rejecting appellant ’ s argument that he should be able to ap peal matters raised by pretrial motions and ruled upon prior to trial where he sig ned a written waiver i n which he “ not only waive d his right to appeal but also gave up and waived all pretrial motions that may h ave been filed in connection w

ith his case ” ).