Marcus Anthony Hamilton v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00082-CR
__________________

MARCUS ANTHONY HAMILTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23DCCR1175
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 13, 2024, the trial court sentenced Marcus Anthony Hamilton on

an indictment for possession of a controlled substance in Trial Cause Number

23DCCR1175. On March 7, 2025, acting pro se, Hamilton filed a notice of appeal.1

The District Clerk then sent Hamilton’s notice of appeal and the trial court’s

certification to the Ninth Court of Appeals. The trial court’s certification, signed on

1
We note that it appears Hamilton filed his notice of appeal too late to perfect
an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2, 26.3.
1
August 13, 2024, states that the case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has

NO right of appeal.” The certification also states, “The defendant has waived the

right of appeal[.]”

On March 18, 2025, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the appeal

unless the appellant established that the trial court’s certification was incorrect.

Hamilton requested additional time to obtain a new certification. Hamilton filed the

clerk’s record and a supplemental clerk’s record that contains the trial court’s

amended certification. The amended certification states that this “is a plea-bargain

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal[.]” The plea bargain agreement in the

clerk’s record confirms that the trial court’s amended certification is correct.2

Because the record lacks a certification that shows Hamilton has the right of

appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 3, 2025
Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

2
In a supplemental response, Hamilton asks this Court to remand the case to
the trial court for a hearing regarding his claim that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel that affected the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Voluntariness of the plea
may not be raised on appeal from a plea-bargained, felony conviction. Cooper v.
State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Furthermore, Hamilton is not
entitled to an out-of-time motion for new trial. See Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354,
359-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
2