Priscilla Cradoct v. The State of Texas — Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00759-CR
Priscilla CRADOCT,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 456th District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 26-1525-CR-E
Honorable Heather Hines, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: 	Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 21, 2026
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated
(third or more) on or about February 22, 2026, and was sentenced to six years of imprisonment in
accordance with the terms of her plea-bargain agreement. 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 T EX. R. APP . P. 25.2(a)(2). After appellant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court
clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. R. 25.2(e). The

04-26-00759-CR
- 2 -
clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id.
R. 25.2(d).
The clerk’s record reflects that the trial court imposed sentence on July 22, 2026. Because
appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on August 21,
2026. See id. R. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on
September 7, 2026. See id. R. 26.3. The clerk’s record contains correspondence from appellant
dated September 1, 2026, wherein she claimed to have sent from jail a “motion to appeal” on
August 21, 2026. See Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“Furthermore,
under the mailbox rule as it applies to prisoners, often called the ‘prisoner mailbox rule,’ a pro se
inmate’s pleading is deemed filed at the time the prison authorities duly receive the document to
be mailed.”). The clerk’s record, however, does not reflect that this “motion to appeal” was filed
on August 21, 2026.
“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke” the jurisdiction of this Court. Taylor,
424 S.W.3d at 43. There is no timely notice of appeal included in the clerk’s record. Even if we
were to construe the correspondence from appellant dated September 1, 2026, as a notice of appeal,
appellant did not file a motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal. See Olivo v. State,
918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (explaining that “[w]hen a notice of appeal, but no
motion for extension of time, is filed within the fifteen-day period [of the deadline for filing the
notice of appeal], the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any
manner other than by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction”). Because a timely notice of appeal is
not included in the clerk’s record, it appears that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
Moreover, even if the clerk’s record included a timely notice of appeal, the trial court did
not certify that appellant has a right to appeal. “In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal

04-26-00759-CR
- 3 -
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.” T EX. R. APP . P. 25.2(a)(2). 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 appellant. 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. Thus, the trial court’s certification 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. R. 25.2(d).
We therefore ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a response, stating that “regardless of
whether [appellant’s] notice[] of appeal could be considered timely filed,” he does not believe that
appellant has a right to appeal.
Because the record does not reflect that appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, we dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH