Ruby Lea Luis v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Date FiledSeptember 23, 2026
Docket04-26-00675-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00675-CR
Ruby Lea LUIS,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2026CR002096
Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 23, 2026
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled
substance and was sentenced to two years of confinement which was immediately suspended and
appellant was placed on adjudicated community supervision for a period of two years. The trial
court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case,
and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
04-26-00675-CR
Generally, in a plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only: (1) those matters that were
raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, (2) after getting the trial court’s permission
to appeal, or (3) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute. Id. 25.2(a)(2). See id.
25.2(a)(2)(A),(B),(C). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the
punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor
and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed
and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal.
See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea-
bargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a
certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”
Id. 25.2(d).
On September 1, 2026, we informed appellant that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended trial court
certification showing that appellant has the right to appeal was made part of the appellate record
by September 14, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 177
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). To date, no such amended certification has been made
part of the appellate record.
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-