DANIEL LEE MORLEY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

DANIEL LEE MORLEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05–11–01466–CR

Decided: November 21, 2011

Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Lang–Miers

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Lang–Miers

Daniel Lee Morley was charged by indictment with impersonating a public servant.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.11(a)(1), (b) (West 2011).   The indictment also alleged that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of committing the offense.   Appellant and the State entered a plea agreement in which the State abandoned the deadly weapon allegation and appellant waived his right to appeal.   The trial judge sentenced appellant to five years' imprisonment.   The trial court's rule 25.2(d) certification states appellant waived his right to appeal.   We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

Appellant's case involves a charge-bargain, like those set out in Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex.Crim.App.2003), and Sheckles v. State, 122 S.W.3d 482, 482–83 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).   The State's abandonment of the deadly weapon allegation impacted appellant's punishment.   See Shankle, 119 S.W.3d at 813.   It eliminated the prohibition on the trial court probating appellant's sentence.   See id.;   see also Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 3g(a)(2) (West Supp.2010).   It also affected the amount of time on his sentence appellant is required to serve before he is eligible for parole.   See Shankle, 119 S.W.3d at 814;  see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 508.145(d) (West Supp.2010).   Thus, we conclude appellant's case involved a plea bargain.   See Shankle, 119 S.W.3d at 813–14;  Sheckles, 122 S.W.3d at 483.

A defendant may knowingly enter a plea bargain in which he waives his right to appeal as part of the agreement.   See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).   The documents before us reflect that appellant, who represented himself at trial, waived his right to appeal in exchange for the State abandoning the allegation that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the course of committing his offense.   Appellant's waiver of his right to appeal leaves us without jurisdiction over the appeal.   See id.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ELIZABETH LANG–MIERS JUSTICE

Copied to clipboard