## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00475 - CR

RODNEY ONEAL WILLIAM S A/K/A RODNEY O. WILLIAMS APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEM ORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- P ursuant to a plea bargain, A ppellant Rodney ONeal Williams a/k/a Rodney O. Williams pleaded guilty to possession of four grams or more but less than four hundred grams of benzylpiperazine

. 2 The trial court’s original

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 Williams and the State entered into the following plea agreement : “Open Plea of Guilty to Court + PLBR [Plea in Bar] 1181245 MJ 5 LBS

- 50LBS on Sentencing PSI.” The record also contains the plea in bar in which the State consented to a bar on further prosecution of Williams ’s pending possession of2

certifi cation of Williams ’s right to appeal states that this “is not a plea

- bargained case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.”
On July 15 , 2011, we notified the trial court that its certificat ion was defective and ordered an amended certification of Will iams’s right to appeal to state that this case is a plea

- bargained case and to indicate whether any matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or whether the trial
court has given Williams permission to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), (f), 37.1; Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613

– 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
On July 25 , 2011, we received the trial court’s amended certification of Williams’s right to appeal. The certification states that this “is a plea

- bargain case , and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”
On July 27 , 2011, we sent the parties a letter notifying them that the appeal may be dismissed unless , by August 8, 2011, any party file d a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal based upon the new c ertification.
See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). We did not receive any responses. Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that a plea

- bargaining defendant may appeal only matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting th e trial court’s permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Chavez marijuana charge in accordance with section 12.45 of the penal code. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.45 (West 2011) (permitting trial court to take into account unadjudicated offense when assessing punishment if State cons ents and defendant admits offense, in which case State is barred from prosecuting defendant for the unadjudicated offense). The trial court granted the plea in bar and sentenced Williams to fifteen years’ imprisonment.3

v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (requiring appellate courts to dismiss prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of basis for appeal). Williams’s bas is for appeal does not concern matters raised by any written motion filed and ruled on before trial, and the trial court’s amended certification of appeal does not otherwise give Williams the right to appeal. Consequently, because Williams has no right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); Chavez , 183 S.W.3d at 680

.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: August 18, 2011