Deion Omar Pryor v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)
Date FiledAugust 13, 2026
Docket11-26-00188-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Opinion filed August 13, 2026
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
___________
No. 11-26-00188-CR
___________
DEION OMAR PRYOR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 104th District Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 25380-B
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Deion Omar Pryor, pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony
offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 71.02(a), (e) (West Supp. 2025). Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain agreement
between Appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment
in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for four
years. On June 22, 2026, the Taylor County District Clerk’s Office filed a document
in this court wherein Appellant, pro se, indicated a desire to appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.2(c)(2). We dismiss the appeal.
When this appeal was docketed, we notified Appellant that the trial court had
certified that this is a plea bargain case in which Appellant has no right of appeal.
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2018); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
In our letter, we requested that Appellant’s court-appointed counsel respond and
show grounds to continue the appeal. On June 24, however, the trial court signed an
order (1) granting Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and (2) denying his
counsel’s motion to substitute counsel and Appellant’s request for court-appointed
appellate counsel.1 As a result, we requested that pro se Appellant respond and show
grounds to continue the appeal, and we informed him that the appeal was subject to
dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). In his response, Appellant states that
his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea bargain case in which the punishment
imposed does not exceed the punishment agreed to by the parties, “a defendant may
appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on
before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the
specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); see
also CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02. Subsections (A), (B), and (C) are not applicable here.
Moreover, a plea-bargaining defendant cannot appeal matters relating to the
voluntariness of his plea or the effectiveness of his counsel unless the trial court has
granted him permission to appeal. See Ex parte Castillo, 664 S.W.3d 833, 834
(Tex. Crim. App. 2022); Harper v. State, 567 S.W.3d 450, 455–56 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) (collecting cases).
The documents on file show that Appellant entered into a plea bargain
agreement, and the trial court assessed his punishment in accordance with that
agreement. Further, the trial court certified that this case is a plea bargain case, and
1
In its order, the trial court confirmed that Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the plea
bargain agreement between Appellant and the State.
2
Appellant has no right of appeal. The trial court’s certification was signed by
Appellant, Appellant’s trial counsel, and the presiding judge. The documents on file
in this court support the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d
610, 613–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal
without further action. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675,
680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
This appeal is dismissed.
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE
August 13, 2026
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
3