ORDER
We REINSTATE these appeals. On April 30, 2025, we ordered the trial court to file among other things, the trial court's certification of defendant's right of appeal in each case. On June 11, 2025, the trial court signed two certifications of defendant's right of appeal in each case; one of which certified that the case "is not a plea bargain case and the defendant has the right of appeal" and the other certified "the defendant has waived
1
the right of appeal on the court's record." The court reporter filed a reporter's record of the hearing concerning the certifications in which the parties and the Court discussed that appellant had waived his right to appeal. On June 24, 2025, this Court ordered the trial court to hold a hearing, make findings within thirty days on appellant's waiver of the right of appeal, and to sign a certification of appellant's right of appeal in each case "that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings and defendant's right of appeal." On September 26, 2025, the trial court signed findings concerning appellant's waiver of the right of appeal, including the following:
2. . . . At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court did not orally admonish Mr. Cisneros about the right of appeal or the effect of a waiver of appeal. No written waiver of appeal signed by Mr. Cisneros exists in the clerk's record or reporter's record.
3. The evidence of waiver consists of the trial court's statements on June 12, 2025, and July 11, 2025, and the testimony of trial counsel, Ms. Dunbar.
4. At the June 12, 2025, hearing, the Court stated: "The docket sheets indicate that the Defendant waived his appeal in person, before the Court, following the sentence of the jury."
5. At the July 11, 2025, hearing, the Court again stated on the record that it recalled that Mr. Cisneros waived his right of appeal after sentencing and orally found "that waiver of appeal was in open court and freely and voluntarily made." The Court further finds that the waiver was made knowingly and intelligently.
6. Mr. Cisneros testified that he did not recall waiving his right of appeal and that he did not understand he could appeal his sentence.
2
He also denied having conversations with his attorney about waiving appeal.
7. Ms. Dunbar testified that after the jury returned its punishment verdict, the Court asked Mr. Cisneros if he waived his right to appeal, and he replied, "Yes, I waive my right to appeal." She further testified that she explained to him that a guilty plea waives appellate rights and that throughout her representation, he never indicated he would not plead guilty.
8. The Court finds that the reporter's record of the trial proceedings does not contain any transcription of a verbal waiver of appeal by Mr. Cisneros. The reporter's record ends with the Court excusing the jury and does not include a waiver. Although trial counsel testified and the docket sheet reflects that the waiver occurred in open court, there is no stenographic record of the waiver being reported by the court reporter.
9. The Court finds that Mr. Cisneros was not promised and did not receive any consideration from the State in exchange for waiving his right of appeal. The evidence shows the case proceeded as a slow plea to the jury for punishment, and no agreements, inducements, or concessions were offered by the State in return for waiver of appeal. On September 26, 2025, the trial court also signed the trial court's certification of defendant's right of appeal in each case certifying "the defendant has waived the right of appeal."
The Court of Criminal Appeals has indicated that consideration given by the State may be necessary for a defendant's waiver of the right of appeal to be knowing and voluntary. See Carson v. State, 559 S.W.3d 489, 494-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) ("[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
3
not agreed upon. . . . In the present case, the key issue is whether the State gave consideration for Appellant's waiver of his right to appeal."). The trial court found that Cisneros received no consideration in exchange for his waiver, yet the trial court concluded the waiver "was made knowingly and intelligently" and certified that he waived the right of appeal.
We defer the question of this Court's jurisdiction, including the correctness of the trial court's September 26, 2025 certifications, to the submissions panel, and we DIRECT the parties to address the question of the trial court's certifications and this Court's jurisdiction in their briefs.
Appellant's brief is due OCTOBER 31, 2025.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Carter Thompson, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County; and counsel for all parties.
/s/ J.J. KOCH
CHIEF JUSTICE
4