Opinion issued December 19, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 7 - 0 0 078
- CR NO. 01
- 17
- 00106
- CR

——————————— MIGUEL E. FERAUDY , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 1 78th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No s . 1 5 12123 and 151212 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION Without agreed punishment recommendations from the State , appellant, Miguel E. Feraudy , pleaded guilty , in trial court case number 1512123, to the felonyoffense of burglary of a habitation 1 and, in trial court case number 1512124, to the

felony offense of violation of a protective order. 2 T he trial court found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at confinement for eight years for each offense , with the sentences to run concurrently

. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal in each proceeding. We dismiss the appeal s . In each case, t he trial court certified that the case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Because the record filed in this Court did not support the trial court’s certification , we abated t he appeal in cause n umber 01

- 17

- 00078

- CR and reman ded the case for clarification of appellant’s right of appeal , including execution of an amended certification of appellant’s right to appeal indicating whether he ha d the right to appeal

. After we abated the appeal, the trial court held at hearing at whic h appellant, his counsel, and the State were present. The hearing record indicates that appellant , on November 7, 2016, “was charged with three cases ” in trial court case numbers 15 12123 , 1512124 , and 1528330 ; appellant “reached a plea bargain agreement with the State of Texas” ; he agreed “to plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily to 151223 [sic] and 1512124 ” ; and “by doing that, the State dismissed as part of that plea bargain 1528330.” Based on the trial court’s certifications of appellant’s right of

1 See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 30 .0 2 (a)( 1 ) , (c)(2) (West Supp. 2017 )

. 2 See id. § 25.07(a)(1), (g) (2) (West Supp. 201 7 ).ap peal and “the fact that the State did nolle one of the cases,” the trial court accepted

the certification “as true” and “the fact it is a plea bargain case, and you have no right of appeal

. ” The trial court’s certification s of appellant’s right to appeal i n both case numbers are included in the abatement hearing record and in the clerk’s records filed in this Court. The certification in case number 1512123 includes the trial judge’s handwritten and initialed note that “State nollied one case as part of plea negotiations.” The trial court did not amend or correct the certification s of appellant’s right of appeal and, thus, has certified that each case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” 3
There are two basic types of plea bargains: sentence bargaining and charge bargaining. Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

. Th e record s in th ese case s reflect a charge bargain in which appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offense s of burglary of a habita tion and violation of a protective order in exchange for the State ’s agree ment to dismiss a third charge. See Kennedy v. State , 297 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Shankle , 119 S.W.3d at 813

– 14; see,
e.g. , Murillo v. State , No. 01

- 08

- 00871

- CR, 2010 WL 2133876, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 27, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In a plea

- bargained case, a defendant may appeal only those matters

3 Further, the trial court’s judgment s state, “APPEAL WAIVED. NO PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.”that were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial or after o btaining the

trial court’s permission to appeal. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 44.02 (West 2006); T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2) ; Kennedy , 297 S.W.3d at 340

– 41

. The record in these appeals do es not reflect the trial court’s permission to appeal or any pretrial motions that could be appealed. In each appeal, t he certification included in the record states that th e case is a plea

- bargained case and appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). And, t he record s support the trial court’s certification s . See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss th ese appeal s . See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal s for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss a ny pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Brown , and Lloyd. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).