COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
No. 08-26-00154-CR
Steven Harry Croan, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
On Appeal from the 109th District Court
Andrews County, Texas
Trial Court No. 8380
M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
On February 27, 2024, Appellant Steven Harry Croan pleaded guilty to a second-degree
felony offense of theft of property. Tex. Penal Code § 31.03(f). The trial court placed Croan on
deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. On January 28, 2026, the
State moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging Croan had violated multiple terms
and conditions of community supervision. At the hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court
announced that Croan had a “proposed agreement with the State.” While admonishing Croan about
his rights, the trial court informed him of his right to have a hearing on the allegations in the State’s motion, that the State had the burden to prove at least one of the allegations by a preponderance of
the evidence, and that the court could assess a sentence of anywhere from two to twenty years’
confinement and a fine up to $10,000. The trial court also stated it could continue Croan on
probation or could extend his probation sentence.
When questioned, Croan confirmed he was asking the court to waive the hearing and
approve his agreement with the State. After accepting Croan’s plea of true to the allegations, the
trial court admitted the State’s evidence without objection: (1) a document titled, “Defendant’s
Written Stipulations and Waivers,” signed by Croan waiving his right to a hearing on the State’s
revocation motion and pleading true to the allegations against him; and (2) a “Waiver of Rights to
Appeal,” signed by Croan stating that, after his punishment had been assessed, he voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. The State then announced that, in exchange
for Croan’s plea of true, it asked that the court find Croan violated conditions of his probation and
to adjudicate him guilty on the underlying charge. The State recommended a sentence of ten years’
confinement in the Institutional Division of TDCJ.1 The trial court adjudicated Croan’s guilt and
sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. Afterwards, Croan sought to appeal the judgment
adjudicating him guilty for the offense of theft of property.
Before this Court, the trial court’s certification of Croan’s right to appeal identifies the case
as both: (1) “a plea-bargain case, and the Defendant has NO RIGHT OF APPEAL”; and (2) as a
case in which “[t]he defendant has WAIVED THE RIGHT OF APPEAL.” Based on a review of
the trial court’s certification, we notified Croan that his appeal would be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, and we ordered him to show cause, on or before June 22, 2026, as to why it should
not be dismissed on said ground. As of today’s date, Croan has not responded.
1
The trial court imposed a sentence running concurrently with an unidentified possession of a controlled substance case which Croan pleaded guilty to on the same day.
2
Rule 25.2(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure does not prohibit a defendant’s
right to appeal when he pleads true to one or more allegations in a state’s motion to revoke his
community supervision. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“[Rule 25.2(a)(2)] refers only to plea bargains with regard to guilty pleas,
not to pleas of true on revocation motions.”). But, when a defendant pleads true and signs a waiver
of the right to appeal in exchange for the State’s punishment recommendation—and the trial court
follows that recommendation—the waiver of the right to appeal is binding. Horton v. State,
Nos. 02-18-00302-CR, 02-18-00303-CR, 2018 WL 3968420, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
Aug. 16, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Crowe v. State, No. 06-25-00092-CR, 2025 WL 2825619, at
*1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 6, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.); Joiner v. State, No. 03-24-00451-CR, 2024 WL 3906829, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 23, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.); cf. Ex parte
Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794, 797–98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (explaining that when a defendant
waives his right of appeal in exchange for a recommended sentence that a trial court subsequently
follows, “[a]ny possible source of error which might arise during the sentencing phase” is removed
because the agreed-upon punishment was applied).
Here, Croan agreed to plead true to the State’s allegations and signed a waiver of his right
to appeal in exchange for the State’s recommendation of a ten-year sentence, which the trial court
followed. Croan’s waiver of his right to appeal is binding. See Crowe, 2025 WL 2825619, at *1
(finding a valid waiver of the right to appeal when defendant pleaded true to one of the State’s
allegations in exchange for the State abandoning two allegations and capping his punishments at
a maximum of twenty months); Horton, 2018 WL 3968420, at *1 (concluding defendant’s waiver
of her right of appeal was valid when she pleaded true to the State’s allegations in exchange for a
14-month punishment recommendation).
3
Because Croan waived his right to appeal the trial court’s judgment, we must dismiss his
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice
July 16, 2026
Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
4