Court Opinion

ID: 9407789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 11:06:48.739324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.066810
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued July 6, 2023

                                    In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                   For The

                        First District of Texas
                          ————————————
                              NO. 01-23-00119-CR
                              NO. 01-23-00120-CR
                              NO. 01-23-00121-CR
                         ———————————
               JOSEPH ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Appellant
                                      V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the 209th District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
             Trial Court Case Nos. 1704924, 1704925 & 1704926

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Appellant, Joseph Anthony Gonzalez, pleaded guilty to three counts of

aggravated assault against a public servant. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(b).

Appellant pleaded guilty without reaching an agreement with the State as to
punishment. In exchange for the State giving up its right to trial, appellant agreed

to waive any right of appeal he might have. On February 10, 2023, the trial court

signed judgments of conviction for the offense of aggravated assault against a public

servant in each case and finding that appellant used a deadly weapon in the

commission of the offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence of life without parole

in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, with

the three sentences to run concurrently.

      On February 14, 2023, Gonzalez filed notices of appeal.               Gonzalez

subsequently filed motions for new trial in each cause, asserting that his plea was

involuntary. The trial court held a hearing on the motions and denied them by order

signed on April 26, 2023, stating that the motions had no merit.

      A defendant may waive his right to appeal in all but capital cases. See Carson

v. State, 559 S.W.3d 489, 492–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). As part of his guilty

pleas, appellant signed a “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate,

and Judicial Confession” in which he waived the right to appeal in each case, stating:

              I understand that I have not reached an agreement with the
      prosecutor as to punishment. However, in exchange for the State
      waiving their right to a jury trial, I intend to enter a plea of guilty
      without an agreed recommendation of punishment from the prosecutor
      and request that my punishment should be set by the Judge after a
      pre-sentence investigation report and hearing. I understand the state
      reserves the right to argue for full punishment at my sentencing hearing.
      I waive any further time to prepare for trial to which I or my attorney
      may be entitled. Further, in exchange for the state giving up their right
      to trial, I agree to waive any right of appeal which I may have.
                                           2
      By agreeing to waive its right to a jury trial, the State gave consideration for

appellant’s waiver of his right of appeal.      See id. at 494.    The trial court’s

certifications state that defendant waived the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial court’s certifications. See Dears v. State,

154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of

appeal, we must dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See Chavez v. State,

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

      Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

                                  PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

                                           3