Michael Hernandez v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Date FiledJuly 23, 2026
Docket01-26-00605-CR
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Opinion issued July 23, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00605-CR
———————————
MICHAEL HERNANDEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1901071
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Michael Hernandez seeks to appeal the judgment of the trial court
convicting him of the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest or detention using
a vehicle and sentencing him to four years’ confinement.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Discussion
Hernandez pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest
or detention using a vehicle with an agreed recommendation on punishment.
Hernandez signed a “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and
Judicial Confession” stating he “intend[ed] to enter a plea of guilty, agree[d] to the
[S]tate’s plea bargain offer, and agree[d] to the . . . [S]tate[’s] recommend[ation] [of]
4 years[’] [incarceration].” The Waiver of Rights states that “[i]n consideration of
[Hernandez’s] plea the State [wa]s dismissing [trial] [c]ause [n]umbers 1900729 and
1900730.”
Hernandez also initialed a document titled, “Admonishments,” stating that if
his punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the State and agreed
upon, he would need the trial court’s permission to appeal. Hernandez further signed
a document titled, “Advice of Defendant’s Right of Appeal,” which advised him that
if he “pled guilty . . . and accepted the punishment recommended by the [State], [he]
c[ould not] appeal [his] conviction unless th[e] [trial] [c]ourt g[ave him]
permission.” (Emphasis omitted.) In signing that document, Hernandez affirmed that
he “read and wr[o]te English” and had read and understood the document.
A defendant in any criminal case has a right of appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
art 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). When the defendant is the appellant in a
criminal case, “the record must include the trial court’s certification of the
2
defendant’s right of appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The trial court’s “Certification
of Defendant’s Right of Appeal” in this case provides that Hernandez’s trial court
case was “a plea-bargain case, and [Hernandez] has NO right of appeal.”
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) provides that “[i]n a plea
bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty . . . and the
punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and
agreed to by the defendant—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); Olvera v. State, No. 01-22-00726-
CR, 2023 WL 4629145, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 20, 2023, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). “A court of appeals, while having
jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to
appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action
. . . .” Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
The record here supports the trial court’s certification that Hernandez
accepted a plea bargain and “has NO right of appeal.” Id. (holding that “appellant
had no right of appeal because he was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a
plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2)”).
Because Hernandez has not received permission to appeal from the trial court and
3
does not meet any of Rule 25.2(a)(2)’s other exceptions, he has no right of appeal.
See id; see also Olvera, 2023 WL 4629145, at *3 (dismissing appeal from guilty
plea where no exceptions of Rule 25.2(a)(2) applied).
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).
We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guiney.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4