Faustino Israel Robles, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Faustino Israel Robles, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 10–11–00416–CR

Decided: January 18, 2012

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins


Faustino Israel Robles attempts to appeal from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance.   By letter dated November 8, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Robles that the appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared that the trial court's certificate of right of appeal indicated that Robles waived his right to appeal and had no right to appeal.   See Tex.R.App. P. 26.2(a)(1);  25.2(d).  The record contains a written waiver of appeal signed by Robles.   The Clerk also warned Robles that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal.   See Tex.R.App. P. 44.3.   Robles filed a response arguing that his waiver of appeal was involuntary because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Robles pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance pursuant to a plea bargain agreement.   In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal 1) those matters raised by written motion filed and ruled upon before trial, or 2) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal.   Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(a)(2).   Robles is not appealing a matter raised by motion filed before trial, and the trial court did not give permission for the appeal.   A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.  Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).   Robles had no right of appeal because he was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2).  Id. In such circumstances, no inquiry into even possibly meritorious claims may be made.  Id.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.



Copied to clipboard