Omarion Brown v. the State of Texas
Docket 01-25-01067-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 01-25-01067-CR
Appeal from convictions and revocation/adjudication judgments in multiple felony criminal cases in Harris County, Texas.
Summary
The First Court of Appeals dismissed Omarion Brown’s appeals in five consolidated criminal cases because the trial-court record shows he validly waived his right to appeal as part of plea agreements. Brown pleaded guilty or stipulated to violations in three theft-from-person cases and pleaded guilty to two aggravated robbery cases; in each cause he signed documents and the judgments reflected an appeal waiver. Because the written certifications and filings demonstrate a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver and the trial court did not grant permission to appeal, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant validly waived his right to appeal in each of the five criminal causes.
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the trial record contains a certification and other documents showing the defendant waived appeal.
Court's Reasoning
Texas law requires a trial-court certification of the defendant’s right to appeal and treats a valid waiver of appeal as eliminating the defendant’s right to appeal absent the trial court’s permission. The record contained signed waivers, stipulations, and judgments stating appeal was waived, and the defendant acknowledged the waiver in filings to the court. Because those documents show the waivers were voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and no permission to appeal was granted, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the appeals.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), 25.2(d)
- Carson v. State559 S.W.3d 489 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018)
- Dears v. State154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
Parties
- Appellant
- Omarion Brown
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Per Curiam (Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan)
Key Dates
- Opinion issued
- 2026-04-16
- Sentencing in all charges
- 2025-11-18
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult defense counsel about collateral options
If Brown seeks further review, he should discuss with counsel whether a post-conviction habeas petition or motion for new trial raising grounds not barred by the waiver is appropriate.
- 2
Request trial court permission to appeal (if applicable)
If there is a basis to argue the waiver was not knowing or voluntary, counsel can seek the trial court’s permission to file a belated appeal or move to withdraw the waiver.
- 3
Preserve any issues for collateral review
Compile and preserve the trial record and any evidence about the plea and waiver colloquy to support any future habeas or other collateral claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What does this decision mean?
- The appeals were dismissed because the trial record shows Brown validly waived his right to appeal, so the appellate court concluded it has no jurisdiction to review the convictions.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Appellant Omarion Brown is directly affected because he cannot pursue these appeals; the State is unaffected except that the convictions and sentences stand.
- What happens next?
- The appellate court dismissed the appeals and any pending motions as moot; unless the trial court grants permission to appeal or the waiver is successfully challenged, the judgments remain final.
- Can Brown still appeal or challenge the convictions?
- Not on direct appeal absent the trial court’s permission, because he waived appeal; he may explore collateral remedies (such as habeas corpus) but those have different standards and procedures.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Opinion issued April 16, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-01063-CR; 01-25-01064-CR; 01-25-01065-CR; 01-25-01066-CR;
01-25-01067-CR
———————————
OMARION BROWN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1830949; 1867352; 1868657; 1915655; 1919056
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Omarion Brown pleaded guilty to the felony offense of theft from
person in trial cause numbers 1830949, 1867352, and 1868657.1 In doing so,
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03.
appellant stipulated that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation,
received a bargain of one-year incarceration in state jail, and as part of his agreement
with the State, agreed to waive his right to appeal. Appellant also pleaded guilty to
the felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon in trial cause
numbers 1915655 and 1919056.2 Appellant stipulated to evidence of a new offense,
was sentenced to confinement of twelve years, and as part of his agreement with the
State, agreed to waive his right to appeal.3 Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The trial court must sign a certification of a defendant’s right of appeal each
time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant
has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d);
Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In the five cases here, the trial court’s certification included in the record on
appeal, signed by appellant, reflects he has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(d). In all cases, appellant signed an Advice of Defendant’s Right of Appeal,
advising him that if he “waived or gave up [his] right to appeal, [he] c[ould not]
appeal [his] conviction.” (Emphasis omitted.) In signing that document, appellant
2
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03.
3
Appellant was sentenced on all charges on November 18, 2025.
2
affirmed that he “read and wr[o]te English” and he had read and understood the
document.
Additionally, in trial cause numbers 1830949, 1867352, and 1868657,
appellant signed a Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and
Judicial Confession, stating “in exchange for the [S]tate waiving its right to a jury
trial . . . I agree that I have knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily waived any
right of appeal which I may have.” Appellant also signed a Stipulation of Evidence
re: State’s Motion to Adjudicate Guilt, where he initialed the sentence stating “As
part of my agreement with the prosecutor to plead true, I AGREE TO WAIVE any
right to appeal I may have concerning any issue or claim in this case, including my
plea or true or admission of guilt.” (Emphasis omitted.)
Further, in trial cause numbers 1915655 and 1919056, the trial court’s
judgment states: “APPEAL WAIVED, NO PERMISSION TO APPEAL
GRANTED.” Moreover, in all five cases, appellant filed a letter acknowledging that
“[b]ecause the clerk’s record affirmatively shows [a]ppellant’s waiver of appeal is
valid and . . . the trial court did not give [him] permission to appeal, it would appear
that this Court has no jurisdiction over this appeal.”
Although a defendant has a statutory right to appeal his conviction, a
defendant may waive his right to appeal in all but capital cases. Carson v. State, 559
S.W.3d 489, 492–93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). A valid waiver of appeal—one made
3
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently—prevents a defendant from appealing
without the trial court’s consent. See id.; see also Flores v. State, Nos.
01-20-00243-CR to 01-20-00246-CR, 2020 WL 2988564, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
publication). “[A] defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his appeal as
part of a plea when consideration is given by the State, even when sentencing is not
agreed upon.” Carson, 559 S.W.3d at 494; see Jones v. State, 488 S.W.3d 801, 804–
08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (explaining presentence waivers of right of appeal have
been upheld when record showed defendant received consideration for waiver).
The record for all cases shows appellant waived his right of appeal, and in
filings to this Court, he has admitted that he waived his right of appeal. Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). We
dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4