Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In the underlying action, Adolfo Rodriguez Estrada pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault and pleaded true to the elements in an enhancement paragraph. Despite the trial court’s certification that Estrada had “NO right of appeal,” Estrada appealed to this court. On March 18, the 1st Court issued an order notifying the parties that the case would be dismissed unless the certification was changed to reflect that a right of appeal was being granted. By April 28, Estrada’s motion to the trial court to grant him permission to appeal the denial of an earlier motion for new trial had been denied. This court thus dismissed Estrada’s attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Estrada then filed a motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration. He argues that he should be permitted to appeal the following issues: 1. whether the trial court’s refusal to grant permission to appeal and certify his right to appeal the adverse ruling on his motion for new trial is itself appealable; 2 whether the denial of his motion for new trial was error; and 3 the voluntariness of his waiver of the right to appeal. HOLDING:Motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration denied. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) is clear in stating that appeals of plea bargained cases can be made only for “those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,” or “after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” There is no exception for the trial court’s refusal to grant permission to appeal. There is no exception for an adverse ruling on a motion for new trial. There is no exception for the voluntariness of waivers. A denied motion for new trial is no different. The court notes that since 1977, appeals in plea-bargained cases have been extremely limited by statute and rule. The Texas Legislature did not authorize review of any of the issues appellant wishes to raise. In delegating authority to the Court of Criminal Appeals to promulgate a comprehensive body of appellate rules in criminal cases, the Legislature expressly provided that the rules could not abridge, enlarge or modify the substantive rights of a litigant. The court adds that the right to appeal is not a constitutional right, so none of Estrada’s rights have been violated here. OPINION:Per curiam; Nuchia, Alcala and Higley, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.