NO. 07-04-0316-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A OCTOBER 29, 2004

______________________________ BRANDON R. MONDINE, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUB BOCK COUNTY; NO. 2003-404,348; HONORAB LE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDG E

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant

Brandon R. Mondine appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. He file d a timely pro se notice of appeal and “Paupe r’s Oath for Appeal” with the trial court on June 4, 200 4. After appellant filed his notice of appeal, the trial court ordered that the record for appeal be prepa red and f i led at no cost to appellant. In a letter received by the clerk of thi s court appellant states that he has no1 We note tha t under th e recent d ecision , Griffin v. State , No. 1092-0 3, 2004 Tex.

Crim. App. LEXIS 1614 (Tex.Crim.App. Sept. 29, 2004), onl ymatters raised in motions filed and ruled on before trial may be appealed un less permission is gi ven by the trial co urt. Jurisdictional defects are no longer exempted from the requirements of Texas Rule o f Appel late Procedu re 25.2(a )(2) and m ust be rai sed by a writ of habeas corpus

. Griffin v. State , 2004 Tex.Crim.A pp. LEXIS1614 at *10. -2- funds to hire an attorney and requests assistance in obtaining appointment of counsel on appeal. Appellant

pl ed guilty i n accordance with a plea bargain and confessed to the accusations in the indictment. Upon determining that his pl ea was knowing and voluntary, the trial court found him guilty of the offense and assessed punishment within t he range recommended bythe prosecutor. As part of the bargain, appellant also waived his righ t to appeal.
Rule 25.2 of t he Texa s Rules of Appel late Procedure requires the trial court

to certif y whether or not the appellant has the right to appeal . In a plea b arga in case in which the defendant’s plea is guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment does not exceed the punishmentrecommended bythe prose cutor and agreed t o by the defendant, a defendant mayappeal only tho se mattersthat wereraised by written motion fi led and ruled on before trial, or after getting the trial court’s permissi on to app eal. Tex . Code Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02 (Vernon 1979); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2 (a)(2). The record do es not indicate any pretrial motions were filed or ruled on befor e the final hearing. Neither does it contain permission from the trial court to appeal. 12 In addition, a supplemental clerk’s record has been filed w ith this court containing

a letter from appellant to the trial court requesting appoint ment of co unsel. T he trial court has written, on the face of the letter, “This was a plea b argain and the court does not give permissi on to app eal. No a ttorney w ill be a ppointed .” See Tex. R. A pp. P. 34 .5(c)(3). -3- If the record does not con tain the certification required by Rule 25.2, that the defendanthas a ri ght to ap peal, th e appeal must be d ismissed . Tex. R. App. P. 2 5.2(d). Here the trial court certifi ed that the defendant has no right of appeal an d that the defendant has waived the right of appeal. 2
Bec ause appellant has no right of appeal to thi s court, we do not co nside r appellant’s request for appointment of counsel on appeal. Tex. Co de Crim. P roc. Ann. art. 1051(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Accordingly, the appeal is dismisse d pursuan t to Texas Rule of A ppellate

Procedu re 25.2(d ).

James T. Campbell Justice Do not pu blish.