Court Opinion

ID: 9404814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 07:09:54.012976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.419968
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-23-00023-CR
     ___________________________

     DEBRA ANTHONY, Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 396th District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 1721864D

 Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant Debra Anthony attempts to appeal her conviction for driving while

intoxicated and felony repetition. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09. Anthony

pleaded guilty to that offense pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, and the trial court

sentenced her in accordance with that agreement to eight years’ confinement and an

$1,100 fine, with the confinement suspended and Anthony placed on community

supervision for five years. Under the written plea admonishments that were signed by

Anthony, Anthony waived her right to appeal. Specifically, through those written plea

admonishments, Anthony stated, “I give up and waive any and all rights of appeal in

this case.” Anthony also stated, “I give up and waive all pretrial motions that may

have been filed in my case.” Consistent with Anthony’s plea-bargain agreement, the

“Trial Court’s [Amended] Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” in this case

reflects that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”1

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

       On February 23, 2023, we notified Anthony of the amended certification and

warned her that we would dismiss the appeal unless we received a response by

       1
        The trial court initially signed a certification in which boxes were marked to
indicate that (1) this “is a plea-bargain case, but matters were raised by written motion
filed and ruled on before trial and not withdrawn or waived, and the defendant has
the right of appeal”; and (2) this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO
right of appeal.” The trial court later amended that certification, scratching out the
box that had been marked to indicate that this “is a plea-bargain case, but matters
were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial and not withdrawn or
waived, and the defendant has the right of appeal.”

                                           2
March 6, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the appeal.               See Tex. R. App.

P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 44.3. While Anthony filed a response, it does not show grounds for

continuing the appeal.2 In accordance with the trial court’s amended certification, we

dismiss Anthony’s appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); see, e.g., Hubatch v. State,

No. 02-22-00153-CR, 2022 WL 4105417, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 8, 2022,

no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

                                                        /s/ Dana Womack

                                                        Dana Womack
                                                        Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 22, 2023

       2
         In her response, Anthony claims that she intended to retain “the right to
appeal matters that were raised in written form and ruled on by the trial court prior to
the plea” and that taking away her right to appeal would render her plea involuntary.
We disagree. As noted above, in the written plea admonishments, Anthony
specifically stated that she was giving up and waiving “all rights of appeal in this case”
and “all pretrial motions that may have been filed in [her] case.” And there is nothing
in the record—no reporter’s record was made of Anthony’s plea—to indicate that
those written waivers were not made voluntarily. See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615,
622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that a valid waiver of appeal will prevent a
defendant from appealing without the trial court’s consent); Connella v. State, No. 2-06-
360-CR, 2006 WL 3751406, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 21, 2006, no pet.)
(per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (rejecting appellant’s
argument that he should be able to appeal matters raised by pretrial motions and ruled
upon prior to trial where he signed a written waiver in which he “not only waived his
right to appeal but also gave up and waived all pretrial motions that may have been
filed in connection with his case”).

                                             3