Court Opinion

ID: 9392808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-07 08:14:52.493422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:48.996818
License: Public Domain

Motion to Dismiss Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion
filed May 2, 2023.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-22-00442-CR

                          TYQUAN DENNIS, Appellant
                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 482nd District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 1682803

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The
record before this court contains two certifications of the defendant’s right of
appeal.

      On May 4, 2022, Appellant signed a judicial confession and agreed to waive
any right of appeal in exchange for the State giving up its right to a jury trial. The
first certification contained in the record was signed by the trial court on May 4,
2022, and states that this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant has no right
of appeal. The judgment, signed May 26, 2022, states “APPEAL WAIVED, NO
PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.” However, the record also contains a
second certification signed by the trial court on June 16, 2022, stating that this is
not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal.

      On October 25, 2022, we granted the State’s motion to abate this appeal for
a corrected certification of the defendant’s right of appeal. In accordance with our
October 25, 2022 order, the trial court conducted a hearing and a record of that
hearing has been filed in this court. The trial court found the second certification,
signed on June 16, 2022, “was signed in error.” Further, the trial court found as
follows:

             The Court has no record or recollection of this document
      having been presented and the Court finds that it made no exception to
      the initial paperwork that was filed on May the 4th of 2022 reflecting
      that Mr. Dennis had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived
      his right of appeal being that the case was a plea bargain and he had
      no right of appeal.
             The Court concludes that Mr. Ty’Quan Dennis, on May the 4th
      of 2022, present before the Court, did knowingly, voluntarily, and
      intelligently waive his right of appeal.
            The Court also concludes that the State of Texas, in providing a
      benefit to Mr. Dennis such as dismissing the case -- an additional case
      that was pending before the Court, and not going forward with the
      right to a jury trial, was a benefit provided to Mr. Dennis and,
      therefore, this was a plea bargain with sentencing done by the Court.

Appellant’s testimony from the hearing also reflects that he pleaded guilty to have
“a chance of getting probation.” In exchange for Appellant’s waiver of his right to
appeal, the State consented to Appellant’s waiver of his right to jury trial. Courts
previously have held that such a waiver is valid if there was consideration. See
Jones v. State, 488 S.W.3d 801, 807–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Ex parte

                                          2
Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Lopez v. State, 595
S.W.3d 897, 900 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020).               Accordingly, the
record reflects we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See, e.g., Theus v. State, 524
S.W.3d 765, 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (“Appellant’s
notice of appeal, coming after entry of a plea bargain agreement and his waiver of
the right to appeal, did not trigger this court’s jurisdiction.”).

      On December 20, 2022, we issued an order reinstating the appeal. The order
states that “[t]he appeal is subject to dismissal without further notice for want of
jurisdiction unless appellant demonstrates, within 21 days of this letter, that the
court has jurisdiction.” Appellant filed a response to the court’s December 20,
2022 order.     The response does not demonstrate any grounds supporting an
exercise of our jurisdiction with respect to this appeal.

      The State also filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that we lack jurisdiction
because the record reflects that Appellant has no right of appeal. For the reasons
delineated above, we grant the State’s motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

                                                PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                            3