Court Opinion

ID: 9371012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 07:10:06.477052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.824885
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 9, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-01307-CR
                               No. 05-22-01308-CR

                        RONNIE WALKER, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
               Trial Court Cause No. F21-00364-U, F22-00546-U

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Ronnie Walker appeals his convictions for sexual assault and aggravated

sexual assault. This Court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals. Accordingly, we

dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

      Appellant was indicted for sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault.

Appellant was represented by counsel in the trial court. On October 11, 2022,

appellant signed a judicial confession and plea agreement in each case. The plea

agreements provided appellant would plead guilty and that the State would

recommend a sentence of twenty years in the penitentiary in the sexual assault case
and thirty years in the penitentiary in the aggravated sexual assault case. Each plea

agreement also provided: “If the punishment assessed by the Court is not greater

than that which you have plea-bargained, you may not appeal on any matter in the

case unless the Court grants permission for the appeal or the matters appealed were

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before the plea.” During the hearing

before the trial court, appellant acknowledged signing the papers and stated that he

understood them. The trial court followed the plea agreements and sentenced

appellant to twenty years’ imprisonment in the sexual assault case and thirty years’

imprisonment in the aggravated sexual assault case. The trial court’s certification of

defendant’s right of appeal in each case states the case “is a plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal,” and “the defendant has waived the right of

appeal.”

      A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal as set out in the Code

of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 44.02. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a) Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2

provides that in “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 the defendant,” a defendant may appeal only “those

matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,” “after

getting the trial court’s permission to appeal,” or “where the specific appeal is

expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). When an appellant

                                         –2–
waives his right to appeal as part of his plea bargain with the State, a subsequent

notice of appeal filed by him fails to “initiate the appellate process,” Lundgren v.

State, 434 S.W.3d 594, 599, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), and “no inquiry into even

possibly meritorious claims may be made,” Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When an appeal from a plea bargain is not authorized by

Rule 25.2, “[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.”

Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680.

      In these cases, appellant and the State entered into plea agreements in which

appellant agreed to plead guilty to the charges of sexual assault and aggravated

sexual assault, the State and appellant agreed to waive their rights to a jury trial, and

both the State and appellant agreed to appellant receiving a sentence of “confinement

in penitentiary for 20 years” for sexual assault and “confinement in penitentiary for

30 years” for aggravated sexual assault.           The documents appellant signed

admonished appellant he would have no right of appeal if the trial court followed the

punishment recommendation except for matters raised by written motion and ruled

on before trial or if the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal. The clerk’s

record does not contain any motion ruled on before trial except the State’s motion to

strike an enhancement paragraph in the indictment for aggravated sexual assault,

                                          –3–
which the trial court granted. The trial court’s certifications of defendant’s right of

appeal show that the trial court did not grant appellant permission to appeal.

      We requested appellant and the State to file letter briefs addressing the

jurisdictional issue. Appellant did not file a jurisdictional brief. The State filed a

brief asserting there is no appellate jurisdiction over these cases.

      We conclude we lack jurisdiction over these appeals from plea-bargained

convictions. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

                                             /Emily Miskel/
                                             EMILY MISKEL
                                             JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
221307F.U05

                                          –4–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

RONNIE WALKER, Appellant                    On Appeal from the 291st Judicial
                                            District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01307-CR         V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-00364-U.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III
                                            participating.

       Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want
of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered February 9, 2023

                                      –5–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

RONNIE WALKER, Appellant                    On Appeal from the 291st Judicial
                                            District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01308-CR         V.               Trial Court Cause No. F22-00546-U.
                                            Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III
                                            participating.

       Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want
of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered February 9, 2023

                                      –6–