Opinion issued August 30, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00451-CR

———————————

FELIX GUILLORY, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court 

Orange County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-110668-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

On April 10, 2012, a jury found appellant, Felix Guillory, Jr., guilty of the 

state-jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance1and, based on his 

pleas of true to two prior convictions for felony offenses, the jury assessed his 

punishment at 16 years’ imprisonment.

2

 The trial court entered judgment pursuant 

to the jury’s verdict and executed a certification of appellant’s right to appeal 

stating that this is not a plea-bargain case and appellant has the right to appeal. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and a motion for new trial on April 19, 

2012. The trial court granted the motion for new trial as to the punishment phase 

on May 31, 2012. Appellant and the State then entered into a plea agreement for 

appellant’s punishment. In the agreement, the State agreed to recommend that 

appellant be sentenced to eleven months confinement in a state jail facility, the 

parties agreed that appellant had 162 days of credit toward his sentence, and 

appellant waived his right to appeal from both the guilt/innocence and punishment 

phases of the trial. On July 5, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant in 

accordance with the parties’ agreement and certified that appellant waived the right 

to appeal.

An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant 

has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P.

 

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2010).

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425(b) (West Supp. 2011).
3

25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The trial 

court’s July 5, 2012 certification, which is included in the record on appeal, states 

that appellant waived the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a). A valid 

waiver of appeal prevents a defendant from appealing without the trial court’s 

consent. Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

When a defendant waives his right of appeal in exchange for consideration 

from the State, his waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and he 

may not appeal any matters unless the trial court first grants permission. See Ex 

parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697–99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (holding that 

defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive appeal without sentencing 

agreement when consideration is given by State for waiver); Blanco v. State, 18 

S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The record shows that appellant 

waived the right to appeal in exchange for a sentencing recommendation from the 

State and that the trial court did not give its permission to appeal. 

Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See

Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 613; see also Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 12 n.12 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2009) (“If a new certificate of appeal . . . were to certify that the 

appellant waived his right to appeal, then, of course, the court of appeals could 

only exercise its appellate jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal under Rule 25.2(d).”).
4

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).