COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00276-CR
RUBEN D. MARQUEZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1357251R
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Ruben D. Marquez attempts to appeal from his conviction for the third-degree felony of accident involving serious bodily injury. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021(c)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2015). Marquez pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain, and in accordance with the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. The trial court’s certification of
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
his right to appeal states 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 July 19, 2016, we notified Marquez that this appeal could be dismissed based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response on or before July 25, 2016, showing grounds for continuing the appeal.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. No response has been filed.
In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 18, 2016
2 That same day, we also notified Marquez that it appeared we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We also noted in the letter that Marquez’s motion for shock probation was granted by the trial court after he filed his notice of appeal and asked Marquez to notify this court if he wished to continue this appeal and, if so, to specify the grounds for doing so. See Pippin v. State, 271 S.W.3d 861, 863–64 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal of order granting shock probation in state-jail felony case).