Billy Seay v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
Date FiledAugust 13, 2026
Docket02-26-00098-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-26-00098-CR
___________________________
BILLY SEAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 432nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1838333
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Billy Seay attempts to appeal his conviction for manufacture or
delivery of a controlled substance in penalty group one. See Tex. Health & Safety
Code § 481.112(d). Pursuant to a charge bargain, Seay entered an open plea1 of guilty
to that offense in exchange for the State’s agreeing to waive the deadly-weapon-
finding and the habitual-offender enhancements contained in the indictment against
him. This bargain is reflected in the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of
appeal, which was signed by Seay and his trial counsel and which 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 March 24, 2026, we notified Seay that the trial court’s certification of his
right of appeal states that this is a plea-bargain case and that he has no right of appeal.
We warned Seay that unless he filed a response by April 23, 2026, showing grounds
for continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Seay
did not file a response. We subsequently sent a letter to the parties informing them
1
The term “open plea” is often utilized to refer to a myriad of different types of
pleas that a defendant might enter, but it is sometimes a misnomer. See Harper v. State,
567 S.W.3d 450, 454 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) (discussing the term
“open plea” and the various settings it has been used, interpreted, and reviewed and
whether it should be used at all). Here, Seay entered his plea without the benefit of an
agreement with the State regarding sentencing; his punishment was left for the trial
court to decide. We use the term “open plea” only because that is how the plea is
referred to in the trial court’s written plea admonishments and in the trial court’s
judgment.
2
that we “ha[d] decided to continue this appeal at th[at] time” and setting a deadline for
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record to be prepared and filed.
We have received and reviewed the appellate record, which confirms that this is
a plea-bargain case. Accordingly, because Seay waived his right of appeal as part of his
charge bargain and because he has not shown grounds for continuing the appeal, we
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Harper, 567
S.W.3d at 454.
Per Curiam
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: August 13, 2026
3