Court Opinion

ID: 9682673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:19:34.801819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:36.137193
License: Public Domain

In The
                              Court of Appeals
                     Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                   No. 07-23-00246-CR

                      ROGER DALE STEMBRIDGE, APPELLANT

                                            V.

                          THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                            On Appeal from the 31st District Court
                                  Wheeler County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 5716, Honorable Steven R. Emmert, Presiding

                                    August 17, 2023
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

      On June 29, 2023, Appellant, Roger Dale Stembridge, filed a notice of appeal, pro

se, from the trial court’s interlocutory order permitting his appointed counsel to withdraw

and appointing new counsel. By letter of July 24, 2023, we notified Appellant that we did

not have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal and directed him to show grounds for

continuing the appeal by August 3. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 697–98 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (explaining that appellate courts have jurisdiction in a criminal case to

consider an appeal from a judgment of guilt or where jurisdiction has been expressly
granted by law); Webb v. State, No. 13-13-00075-CR, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5082, at *3

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 25, 2013, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated

for publication) (finding no interlocutory appeal from an order permitting counsel to

withdraw). Appellant did not respond to our inquiry.

       We have since been notified that on August 9, 2023, Appellant was convicted of

driving while intoxicated 1 and sentenced to six years’ confinement pursuant to a plea

bargain agreement. The trial court issued a certification of Appellant’s right of appeal

reflecting that this is a plea bargain case from which Appellant has no right of appeal.

The certification comports with the record before the Court.

       Because we are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dismiss an

appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been

made part of the record,” we dismiss the appeal based on the trial court’s certification.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Terrell v. State, 245 S.W.3d 602, 604-605 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (holding that the appellate court need not afford advance

notice of its intent to dismiss when the trial court certification reflects appellant has no

right to appeal).

       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                        Per Curiam

Do not publish.

       1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b).

                                                2