                                Fourth Court of Appeals
                                        San Antonio, Texas
                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                           No. 04-14-00196-CR

                                          Martin SANTA CRUZ,
                                                 Appellant

                                                  v.
                                             The STATE of
                                          The STATE of Texas,
                                                Appellee

                      From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                    Trial Court No. 2013CR2364
                           Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting:           Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
                   Karen Angelini, Justice
                   Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 4, 2014

DISMISSED

           The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain,

and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and

agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the

underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

           Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part
                                                                                     04-14-00196-CR


of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On April 29, 2014, we ordered that this

appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification

showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by May

27, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.).

       Appellant’s counsel has filed a written response agreeing that this court has no jurisdiction

in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, Rule 25.2(d) requires

this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.


                                                 PER CURIAM


DO NOT PUBLISH




                                                -2-
