Steven Charles Powell v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
Date FiledJuly 30, 2026
Docket07-26-00302-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-26-00302-CR
STEVEN CHARLES POWELL, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Swisher County, Texas
Trial Court No. B-5075-24-12, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding
July 30, 2026
ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant, Steven Charles Powell, was
convicted of failure to comply with the sex offender registration requirements1 and
sentenced to five years of confinement, suspended in favor of five years of community
supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision, to which Appellant pleaded true. The trial court revoked Appellant’s
1 See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 62.102(b)(2).
community supervision and assessed punishment at five years of confinement. Appellant
now appeals from the judgment revoking his community supervision.
The trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal from the revocation
proceedings reflects that this is a plea bargain case with no right of appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The record, however, contains neither a written plea bargain
agreement applicable to the revocation proceedings nor a waiver of Appellant’s right to
appeal the revocation, and the judgment does not indicate that the revocation was based
on a plea bargain agreement. See Wilkerson v. State, 264 S.W.3d 102, 103 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (“Rule 25.2(a)(2) refers only to plea bargains with regard
to guilty pleas, not pleas of true on revocation motions.”).
Because the certification appears defective, we abate the appeal and remand the
cause to the trial court to prepare an amended certification of Appellant’s right of appeal
consistent with the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(f); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610,
613–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (requiring an appellate court to determine whether the
trial court’s certification comports to the record). The trial court shall utilize reasonable
means to secure Appellant’s signature on the amended certification. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(d). The amended certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record filed
with this Court by September 14, 2026.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.
2