Court Opinion

ID: 9910632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 07:11:01.564148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:35.159956
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed December 14, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   ___________

                              No. 11-23-00245-CR
                                   ___________

          CHRISTOPHER BENNETT WOOTEN, Appellant
                                         V.
                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 118th District Court
                           Howard County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 16679

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant, Christopher Bennett Wooten, pleaded guilty to the offense of
driving while intoxicated, a third-degree felony, enhanced with a prior felony
conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (West 2019), § 49.09(b) (West
Supp. 2023). Appellant pled “true” to the State’s enhancement allegation. Pursuant
to a plea bargain agreement between Appellant and the State, the trial court assessed
Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years in the Institutional
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice
of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
      When this appeal was docketed, the clerk of this court notified Appellant by
letter that the trial court had certified that this is a plea bargain case in which
Appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); see also TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2018). In our letter, we requested that
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel respond and show grounds to continue the
appeal. Appellant’s counsel did not file a response; however, Appellant responded
twice. In his first response, Appellant states, among other things, that the use of his
prior convictions for driving while intoxicated violates the Double Jeopardy Clause
and the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. He further states
that the trial court’s certification allowed for the appeal of matters raised by written
motion, filed, and ruled upon before trial. In his second response, Appellant requests
that we “just dismiss” the case so he can file a petition for discretionary review.
      Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure limits a criminal
defendant’s right to appeal in a plea bargain case. Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in
a plea bargain case in which the punishment imposed does not exceed the
punishment agreed to by the parties, “a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters
that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (B) after getting
the trial court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the specific appeal is expressly
authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). With regard to subsection (A), a
defendant may waive his right to appeal pretrial motions, as long as the waiver is
“voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” made. Marsh v. State, 444 S.W.3d 654,
660 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.14 (West
2005); Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). A waiver
of this right “will prevent a defendant from appealing without the consent of the trial

                                           2
court.” Broadway, 301 S.W.3d at 697 (citing Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 617
(Tex. Crim. App. 2003)).
      Rule 25.2 also provides that, in the absence of the trial court’s certification
showing that the defendant has a right of appeal, the appeal “must be dismissed.”
TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We note that Rule 25.2 does not permit a plea-bargaining
defendant to appeal matters related to the voluntariness of the plea bargain unless
the defendant has obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal. See Cooper v.
State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929,
931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).
      In his pro se notice of appeal, Appellant cites to Rule 25.2(a)(2)(A) and
provides an enumerated list of eight issues, concepts, or allegations, including
“defective indictment,” “illegal ct. charges,” “collussion [sic], conspiracy, and
illegal act” by the trial court, the district clerk, and his counsel, “illegal sentence,”
and “confussion [sic] of 118th Dist. Ct. on Dist. Attorney . . . Is it Josh Hamby or
Erica Nielsen, never heard of.” While we agree that a defendant may appeal “those
matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,” Appellant
does not specify whether the issues, concepts, and allegations he listed were raised
by a written, filed motion that was ruled on by the trial court before trial, or in this
instance, before his plea. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(1)(A). Nevertheless, Appellant
waived his right to appeal, and he has not received permission from the trial court to
appeal. Marsh, 444 S.W.3d at 660; Broadway, 301 S.W.3d at 697.
      The documents on file in this appeal show that Appellant entered into a plea
bargain agreement, that his punishment was assessed by the trial court in accordance
with the agreement, and that he waived various rights, including his right to appeal.
The waivers were signed by Appellant, his attorney, and the trial court. The
trial court certified that Appellant had waived his right of appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.2(d). The documents on file in this cause therefore show that Appellant
                                           3
waived his right of appeal. Furthermore, the trial court certified that Appellant has
no right of appeal. The trial court’s certification was also signed by Appellant,
Appellant’s trial counsel, and the trial court. The documents on file in this court
support the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613–14
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal without further
action. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Marsh, 444 S.W.3d at 660; Chavez v. State, 183
S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
      This appeal is dismissed.

                                               W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
                                               JUSTICE

December 14, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                         4