Michael Anthony Munoz Bernal v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed Michael Anthony Munoz Bernal’s appeal from a plea-bargained conviction. The court held that the appeal did not fall within any exception to the defendant’s waiver of appellate rights under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2), and it granted the State’s motion to dismiss and enforce the plea agreement.

Holdings

1. In a plea-bargain case, a defendant may appeal only matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, matters for which the trial court granted permission to appeal, or matters expressly authorized by statute. Because appellant's appeal did not fall within any of those exceptions, the appeal was subject to dismissal.
2. Appellant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and coercion did not independently establish a right to appeal or bring the case within an exception to Rule 25.2(a)(2).
3. The indictment challenge did not provide a basis for appellate review because appellant pleaded true to the second enhancement paragraph, which elevated the punishment range, and the State abandoned its habitual-offender allegation as part of the plea bargain.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appellant could appeal his conviction despite the trial court's certification that the case was a plea-bargain case in which he had no right of appeal.
2. Whether appellant's ineffective-assistance and coerced-plea allegations brought the appeal within an exception to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2).
3. Whether appellant's challenge to the indictment based on enhancement paragraphs provided a basis for appellate review.

Disposition

dismissed