John Steven Koutsoufis v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________

No. 02-25-00214-CR
___________________________

JOHN STEVEN KOUTSOUFIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 5
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1854283

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant John Steven Koutsoufis, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the

trial court’s order of deferred adjudication based on his plea bargain with the State.

We dismiss this appeal.

Appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to committing a terroristic

threat of his family or household. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.07(a), (c)(1). As part

of his plea, Appellant waived many rights, including his right to appeal, and he

admitted the following: he was “mentally competent”; he “fully understood each of

the [c]ourt’s admonishments and . . . these waivers”; he was “aware of the

consequences of [his] plea”; his guilty plea was “knowingly, freely, and voluntarily

entered”; and “[n]o one ha[d] threatened, coerced, forced, persuaded, or promised

[him] anything in exchange for [his] plea.”

In exchange for Appellant’s guilty plea and waivers, the State recommended

that Appellant be placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision for

15 months. The trial court found that Appellant was mentally competent; had been

represented by competent counsel; understood the nature of the charges against him;

had been warned of and understood the consequences of pleading guilty; and had

“freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” made his guilty plea and waivers.

Following the State’s recommendation, the trial court signed an order deferring an

adjudication of guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for 15 months.

2
The trial court’s certification of appeal provides that “this criminal case . . . is a

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2), (d). Accordingly, we informed Appellant by letter that his appeal was

subject to dismissal based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party

desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the

appeal.

Appellant responded, asserting the following summary grounds for appeal:

• “[v]iolation of [c]onstitutional [r]ights,” including the denial of due process;

• “[c]oerced [p]lea”;

• “[i]neffective assistance of counsel”;

• “[i]nsufficient evidence”;

• “[p]rosecutorial misconduct” (including malicious prosecution, withholding
exculpatory evidence, improper arguments, and “[o]ver[]inflated” charges),
which he stated required the trial judge’s and prosecutor’s “recus[als]”;

• “[s]entencing errors”;

• “[d]eferred adjudication was not explained to [Appellant]”;

• “[Appellant] has disabilities under ADA [f]ederal [l]aw”; and

• “NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.”1

1
Appellant has since submitted a copy of his victim’s affidavit of
nonprosecution and letters from a doctor and a licensed professional counselor—all
of which predate his plea agreement—along with an undated letter from his victim
(acknowledged by a notary public on July 28, 2025). In sum, these documents seek to

3
When a trial court follows a plea bargain, the defendant may appeal only

(1) those issues that were raised in written motions filed and disposed of before trial

or (2) with the trial court’s permission. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Chavez v. State,

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Neither circumstance is present here.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 43.2(f);

Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680; see, e.g., McMurtrey v. State, No. 02-17-00031-CR,

2017 WL 1536235, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 27, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr
Elizabeth Kerr
Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 7, 2025

contradict or explain away what he otherwise signed in his judicial confession as part
of his plea agreement.

4