In a recent ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of Michael Hernandez, who was convicted of evading arrest or detention using a vehicle. The court found that Hernandez did not have the right to appeal his conviction due to the nature of his plea agreement. This decision affects Hernandez and sets a precedent for similar cases involving plea bargains in Texas.

The court issued its opinion on July 23, 2026, in case number 01-26-00605-CR. Hernandez was sentenced to four years in prison after pleading guilty to the third-degree felony charge. The ruling emphasizes the limitations on appeals in plea bargain cases, which are common in the Texas criminal justice system.

Background

Michael Hernandez was the appellant in this case, appealing against the State of Texas, the appellee. The dispute arose after Hernandez pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention using a vehicle. This plea was part of a plea bargain agreement, where he accepted the punishment recommended by the prosecution.

Hernandez signed several documents before entering his plea. These included a “Waiver of Constitutional Rights, Agreement to Stipulate, and Judicial Confession,” which indicated that he understood the terms of his plea and agreed to the four-year sentence. Additionally, he initialed a document titled “Admonishments,” which stated that he would need permission from the trial court to appeal if his sentence did not exceed the agreed punishment.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Hernandez's appeal. The court stated, “The record here supports the trial court’s certification that Hernandez accepted a plea bargain and ‘has NO right of appeal.’” This ruling was based on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2), which limits the rights of appeal for defendants who enter into plea bargains.

The court noted that Hernandez did not receive permission to appeal from the trial court, nor did he meet any of the exceptions outlined in the rule. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, stating, “Because Hernandez has not received permission to appeal from the trial court and does not meet any of Rule 25.2(a)(2)’s other exceptions, he has no right of appeal.”

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for defendants in Texas who enter plea bargains. It reinforces the idea that defendants who accept plea agreements may have limited rights to appeal their convictions. This decision may deter some defendants from appealing, knowing that the courts may dismiss their cases without further consideration.

Additionally, this ruling serves as a reminder for defendants to fully understand their rights and the implications of their pleas before entering into agreements. The court's decision may affect future cases where defendants plead guilty and later seek to appeal their convictions.

What's Next

Hernandez's case appears to be concluded at this level, as the court dismissed his appeal. There is no indication in the court filing that Hernandez plans to pursue further legal action or that there are related cases pending.