Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2004

Orrick Nero v. State

Orrick Nero v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided December 22, 2004

Orrick Nero v. State

Opinion










In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-04-00081-CR

______________________________


 

ORRICK NERO, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



                                              


On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 241-1710-03



                                                 




Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            On March 5, 2004, Orrick Nero pled guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount greater than 200 grams but less than 400 grams, a first degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (e) (Vernon 2003). There was no negotiated plea agreement in this case; instead, Nero submitted the issue of punishment to the trial court's discretion.

            The trial court accepted Nero's plea, heard evidence and argument regarding punishment, and then sentenced Nero to thirty years' imprisonment. Following the pronouncement of the sentence, Nero signed a document titled "WAIVER OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT AND WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL," which he submitted to the trial court. Nero states in his waiver, "That he does not wish to appeal his conviction[,] and expressly waives his right to appeal." Nero also orally waived his right to appeal before the trial court. And the trial court's certification reflects Nero waived his right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

            A criminal defendant may waive many rights, including one's right to appeal. Walton v. State, 92 S.W.3d 845, 846 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.). "A knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal is binding on the defendant and prevents him from appealing any issue in the cause without the consent of the court." Id. "The proper disposition of such a case is not a dismissal for want of jurisdiction, because the waiver does not affect our jurisdiction. Rather, it prevents the defendant from bringing the appeal." Id.

            Accordingly, we dismiss Nero's appeal.

 


                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

 

Date Submitted:          December 21, 2004

Date Decided:             December 22, 2004


Do Not Publish

          We affirm the judgment.




                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice


Date Submitted:          January 6, 2005

Date Decided:             January 7, 2005


Do Not Publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.