Stephen Kay Thorp, Jr. v. the State of Texas
Docket 04-26-00020-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 04-26-00020-CR
Appeal from a conviction entered after a plea bargain in the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Stephen Kay Thorp Jr.’s criminal appeal because the trial-court certification states this was a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal. The clerk’s record confirms the sentence did not exceed the prosecutor’s recommendation and there is no written pretrial motion, trial-court permission to appeal, or statute authorizing the appeal. The court gave Thorp an opportunity to supply an amended certification but none was filed, so the court dismissed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).
Issues Decided
- Whether the defendant has a right to appeal a plea-bargain conviction when the punishment did not exceed the prosecutor's recommendation and agreed sentence
- Whether a trial-court certification showing no right to appeal must be part of the appellate record to proceed
- Whether any written pretrial motion, trial-court permission, or statute authorizes this specific appeal
Court's Reasoning
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) limits appeals in plea-bargain cases absent a preserved written motion, trial-court permission, or statutory authorization. The clerk’s record includes the written plea agreement showing the imposed punishment did not exceed the agreed recommendation, and no qualifying written motion or permission appears. The court also required an amended certification and, since none was filed, dismissed the appeal under Rule 25.2(d).
Authorities Cited
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2)
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d)
- Dears v. State154 S.W.3d 610
- Daniels v. State110 S.W.3d 174
Parties
- Appellant
- Stephen Kay THORP, Jr.
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- M. Patrick Maguire
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-08
- deadline to file amended certification ordered by appellate court
- 2026-03-05
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult defense counsel
Talk with your attorney immediately to review the plea agreement and determine whether any pretrial motions were filed or whether statutory grounds exist to challenge the dismissal.
- 2
Request amended trial-court certification
If there is a basis, ask the trial court to issue an amended certification showing the defendant has the right to appeal and have it made part of the appellate record.
- 3
Consider other post-conviction remedies
If an amended certification is not possible, discuss alternative remedies with counsel, such as filing a motion for DNA testing, motion for arrest of judgment, or post-conviction habeas, as appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What does this decision mean?
- The appeals court dismissed the appeal because the record and the trial-court certification show this was a plea-bargain case and the defendant does not have an automatic right to appeal under the applicable rule.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The immediate effect is on the appellant, Stephen Kay Thorp Jr.; the State’s conviction and sentence from the plea bargain remain in place.
- What could have allowed the appeal to proceed?
- The appeal could have proceeded if there had been a written pretrial motion ruled on, if the trial court had granted permission to appeal, or if a statute expressly authorized the specific appeal.
- Can this dismissal be challenged?
- A party may seek to correct the record by obtaining an amended trial-court certification showing a right to appeal; otherwise options are limited and would require appropriate post-judgment procedures or showing statutory authorization.
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
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00020-CR
Stephen Kay THORP, Jr.,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. B23-619
Honorable M. Patrick Maguire, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026
DISMISSED
The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that this criminal case, “is a plea-bargain
case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure provides:
In a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or
nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended
by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a defendant may appeal only:
04-26-00020-CR
(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).
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 the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled
upon before trial, nor does it indicate the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. Appellant
has not identified with this court any statute that expressly authorizes the specific appeal. See id.
The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea-bargain case
and 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.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We issued an order stating
this appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification was made part of the
appellate record by March 5, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.).
No such amended trial court certification has been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed
pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-