COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00475-CR

RODNEY ONEAL WILLIAMS A/K/A 

RODNEY O. WILLIAMS

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant 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 

 

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

2Williams and the State entered into the following plea agreement: “Open 

Plea of Guilty to Court + PLBR [Plea in Bar] 1181245 MJ 5LBS-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 of 
2

certification 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 certification was 

defective and ordered an amended certification of Williams’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 filed a response 

showing grounds for continuing the appeal based upon the new certification. 

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 the 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 consents 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 basis 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