Opinion filed January 12 , 201 2



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 11

- 00 254

- C R

__________

TERRY LANE LEE , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 238 th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . CR36839

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Terry Lane Lee pleaded guilty to two first

- degree
felony counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. In accordance with the plea bargain , the

trial court accepted his plea and sentenced him to confinement for a term of twenty

- nine years in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each count with the
sentences to run concurrently. On ap peal, appellant attempts to set aside his conviction on the
grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his plea was involuntary. According to the

record, however, appellant waived his right to appeal, and the trial court did not grant him a r ight
to appeal. Specifically, the trial court’s certifications of appellant’s right of appeal indicated that
it was a plea

- bargain case and appellant has no right of appeal and that appellant waived the right
of appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal

.2

On December 1, 2011, the clerk’s office notified appellant in writing of the trial court’s

certification s and their consequences to his appeal. Appellant was requested to provide a written
response by December 16, 2011, to continue the appeal. Appellant has filed numerous motions
and response s since then claiming that his appeal should be continued because it is meritorious.

In connection with his guilty plea, appellant acknowledged in writing that he was waiving
his right to appeal the conviction unde r the terms of the plea bargain. H e executed a “Waiver of
Right to Appeal” in each count wherein he was admonished in writing of his right to appeal the
conviction and the right to court

- appointed counsel on appeal if he is indigent. He agreed to

“ volunt arily, knowingly and intelligently WAIVE AND GIVE UP [HIS] RIGHT TO

APPEAL .” Furthermore, appellant acknowledged in writing that he was admonished by the trial

court :
[I] f the punishment assessed by the Court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed to by me, the Court must give its permission to me before I may prosecute an appeal on any matter in the case except for those matters raised by written motion filed prior to trial whic h were ruled on by the Court.

The record shows t hat appellant received the necessary admonishments about the
consequences of his plea, including the waiver of his right to appeal. Both h e and his trial
counsel signed the written admonishments and waiver s of the right to appeal

, and the trial court
accepted them. When a defendant waives this limited right to appeal, he may appeal only if the
trial court later gives its express permission. See Willis v. State , 121 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2003); Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615, 6 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Here, a ppellant
expressly waived his right to appeal under the terms of his plea agreement. The trial court ’s

certification s do not indicate that he was given permission to appeal

, nor does the record. As a

result, we dismiss his appeal

. Furthermore, T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2 5.2(a)(2) provides as follows:

I n a plea bargain case

– that is, a case in which a defendant ’ s plea was guilty .

. . and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by t he defendant

– a defendant may appeal only:

(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or

(B) after getting the trial court ’ s permission to appeal.3

The trial court’s certification s indicate that appellant does not have a right of appeal because he
was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the
exceptions listed under Rule 25.2(a)(2). We must dismiss the appeal “without further action,
regardless of the basis for the appeal” if the trial court’ s certification s show there is no right to
appeal. Chavez v. State , 183 S.W. 3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In such circumstances,
no inquiry into even possibly merito rious claims may be made. Id

. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

January 12 , 2012
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Hill, J. 1

1 John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.