Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2013

Alfred Kelly Goforth v. State

Alfred Kelly Goforth v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided March 7, 2013

Alfred Kelly Goforth v. State

Opinion

NUMBER 13-11-00481-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ALFRED KELLY GOFORTH, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Alfred Kelly Goforth, attempts to appeal his conviction for bail-jumping, a third degree felony offense, see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.10(f) (West 2011), in trial court cause number L-10-0017-CR-B. The trial court has certified that this is a plea- bargain case, and the Defendant has NO right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On September 1, 2011, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. On November 2, 2011, this Court abated this appeal to permit appellant’s counsel to review the record. The trial court filed findings of fact of January 25, 2012, which confirm that appellant entered into a plea bargain agreement in this case.

On April 20, 2012, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. Moreover, we have reviewed the record of the May 24, 2011, punishment hearing, in which appellant confirmed his acceptance of the plea bargain agreement and understanding of the limitation on his right to appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2 (d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Per Curiam Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 7th day of March, 2013.

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