Court Opinion

ID: 3068790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-15 23:58:58.318814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:00.295468
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-15-00043-CR
                           ____________________

                   TIMOTHY SCOTT MURPHY, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________            ______________

                    On Appeal from the 260th District Court
                           Orange County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. D-140,239-R
________________________________________________________             _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On December 16, 2014, the trial court sentenced Timothy Scott Murphy on a

conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Murphy filed a notice of

appeal on January 16, 2015. The trial court signed a certification in which the court

certified that this is a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal,

and that the defendant waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certification to the Court of

Appeals. On January 28, 2015, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the

                                         1
appeal unless the appellant established that the certification is incorrect. 1 No

response has been filed. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant

does not have the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                              ________________________________
                                                        HOLLIS HORTON
                                                            Justice

Submitted on March 3, 2015
Opinion Delivered March 4, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

      1
       We also notified the parties that a motion for extension of time was required
because Murphy filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days after the date of
sentencing. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. He did not file a motion
for extension of time. The appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
                                          2