### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

ON MOTION F OR REHEARING
NO. 03-0 6 -00 709 -CR
Tim ot hy F r anks , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 3032 462 , HO NORAB LE DONALD LEO NARD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N We withdraw the opinion and judg ment dated Dece mber 12, 2006, and subst itute the fo l l o wi n g t o ad dre s s i s s u es ra i s edi nap p el l an t ’s m o t i o nfo r r eh ea ri n g.

Th is c a se inv olv e s the de a dli ne fo r fi lin g a ne w no tic e of a pp e a l in an out -of

-t ime appea l gr anted a s a re sult of a post-conviction habe as cor pus proce eding
. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. Ann. ar t. 11.07 (West 2005). Timothy Fr anks was convicted of murder a nd sentenc ed to ninety -nine y ear s in prison on Aug ust 5, 2005. Fra

nks did not file a mot ion for new trial; there fore , the orig inal deadline f or filing a notice of appea l w as September 6, 2005. Tex. R. App. P. 4.1( a), 26.2(a) (1). Due to fa ctors beyond F ra nk s’ s c on tr ol, the or ig ina l no tic e of a pp e a l wa s n ot f

ile d unti l Se pte mbe r 2 7, 20 05 . B e c a us e thi s orig inal notice of a

ppeal wa s not filed timely , this Court l acke d jurisdiction to consider the appe al and2

dismiss ed it f

or want of jurisdiction on October 20, 2005. Fran k

s v . S tat e , N o . 0 3

- 0 5
- 0 0 6 7 0

- CR ( T e x. App.—Austin Oct. 20, 2005, no pet.) ( not desig nated f or publication). Fr anks soug ht post-conviction habea s corpus re lief under article 11.07. On May

10, 2006, the court of criminal appeals g rante d Fr anks an out-of -time appe al. Ex parte Frank s , N o. AP75,39 7 (T ex . Crim. App. May 10, 2006) (not desig nated f or publication). The court of c riminal
a pp e a ls e xpre ssl y

de c lare d in its op ini on that the de a dli ne fo r fi lin g a ne w n oti c e of

a pp e a l in the ou to f

- ti me a p p e a l w o u ld b e “ w it

h in th ir ty d ay s a f te r th e ma

n d a te o f th is Co u rt h a s issued.” Id
. The court’s ma

ndate issued on J une 5, 2006. Consequently , the deadline for f iling a ne w notice of

appea l as a pa rt of the out-of

-time appe al was July

6, 2006. Fr anks did not file a ne w notice of appea l. I n s tead, F ranks’ s counsel advise d the dis tr ic t c le rk

to f or wa rd to t his Court a c op y of the c ourt of c ri min a l a pp e a ls’ s ma

nd a te tog e the r w ith
a c op y of the or ig ina l no tic e of

a pp e a l f ile d in Se pte mbe r 20 05
. Th e Cle rk re c e ive d a

nd fi le d th e se documents on Nove mber 17, 2006. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 25 .2 (e ). Ap pa

re ntl y , th e int e nti on

wa s to r e ly
on the or ig ina l un tim e ly

no tic e of a pp e a l a s th e me ans of

pe rf e c ti ng th e a

pp e a l in the ou t- of

-t ime
a pp e a l g ra nte d b y the c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls. Whe n a de fe nd ant ob ta ins an ou t- of -t ime a pp e a l by me ans of

a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s, the re lief g rante d is to return th e d ef endant to the point i n the appe llate proc ess at which he can proper ly g ive notice of

appea l and then per fec t an appe al pursuant to the rules of appellate proce dure. Se e Ex pa rteGa rc ia , 988 S.W .2d 240, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). This is ty pically done, as it wa s in t his c a se , b y

the c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls de c lari ng that a newse t of a pp e llate de a dli ne s w ill be g in3

to run as if the de fenda

nt’s sentenc e had been impos ed on the date of the c ourt’s mandate in the habe as corpus pr ocee ding. I f a de fenda nt who is gr anted a

n out-of-time a

ppeal wish es t o p ro s ec ute an appea l, the defe ndant must take af firmative steps to perf

ect the a ppeal in the same manner as require d had he a

ppeale d the conviction in the first instance
. Id . T he c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls
re ite rate d th is p ro c e dure in i ts o pin ion g ra nti ngF ra nk s a n o ut- of -t ime a pp e a l:
Habe as cor

pus r e li e f is gr anted a

nd Applicant is g rante d an out-of- time appea l fr om h is c on vic tio n in

c a us e numbe r 3 03 24 62 fr om t he 40 3r d Dis tr ic t Cour

t of T ra vis County . The prope r re medy in a ca se such as this is to r eturn Applica nt to the point a t w hic h h e c an g ive no tic e of a pp e a l. F or purp os e s of

the Te xas R

ule s o f A pp e llate Procedur e, all time limit s shall be calculated as if the conviction had been enter ed on the day t h at t h e mandate of this Court issues. W e hold that Applicant, should he desire to pr osecute an appe al, must take af firmative steps to see that notice of appe al is give n within thirty

day s after

the mandate of this Court has issued. Ex parte Frank

s , No. AP-75,397 (Tex. Crim. App. Ma y 10, 2006) (not desig nated f or publication). The judg ment of the c ourt of cr iminal appea ls g ranting Fr anks habeas relief did not
resur rec t Fra nks’s orig inal untimely

notice of a

ppeal. B y its ex press languag e, the c ourt of cr iminal appea ls require d Fr anks to perf ect a ny desired a ppeal pur suant to the rules of a ppellate pr ocedur e, including de adlines, base d on those dea dlines running from the date of the cour t’s mandate. F ranks had thirty day s from June 5, 2006, to file a new notice of appe al and pe rfe ct his new a ppeal. He did no t f ile a ne w n oti c e of

a pp e a l. I n h is m oti on

fo r r e he ari ng , F ra

nk s argue s th a t bec a

us e he wa s g ra

nte d a n o ut- of -t ime appea l, the September 2005 notice of appe al should now be c onsidered a prematurely

filed notice of appe al wit hin the m eaning of appellate rule 27.1(b) and deeme d filed on the date of t he cour t of4

c ri min a l a pp e a ls’ s ma

nd a te in t he ha be a s c or pu s p ro c e e din g . Ru le 27 .1 (b ) p ro vid e s:
I n a cr iminal case, a

pre maturely

filed notice of

appea l is effe ctive and de e me d f ile d o n the da

y , b ut a ft e r, se nte nc e is i mpo se d o r s us pe nd e d in op e n c ourt , or th e a p p e a la b le o r d e r is s ig n e d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt. B u t a n o ti c e o f a p p e a l is not eff ect iv e if f il e d b e f o r e th e tr ia l c o u rt m a k e s a f in d in g o f g u il t o r r e c e iv e s a

jur y ve rd ic t. Tex. R. App. P
. 2 7
. 1 (b ). Franks a rg ues that bec ause the court of c riminal appea ls’s order expressly returne d him “to the po int at which he c an g ive notice of appea l,” it had the ef

fec t
o f ch an gi n g the date se ntence was imposed to J une 5, 2006. He then re asons that the previously

untime l y S ep tember 2005 notice of appe al was tra nsformed into a pr emature ly filed notice and is e ffe ctive as of J une 5, 2006. Th is i s an attr a c tiv e argume nt i ns of ar a s it wo uld a vo id fu rt he r d e lay of the a pp e a l to wh ic h F ra

nk s is pla inl y

e nti tle d. Ne ve rt

he le ss, we are unp e rs ua de d th a t Ru le 27 .1 (b ) o pe rate s in such a fashion. F irst, the court of c riminal appea ls ordere d Fr anks to “take aff irmative steps to see that notice of appea l is g iven within thirty day s” afte r the mandate issued in the hab ea s co rpus proce eding . The orde r expressly co n t em p l ates futur e ac tion by Fr anks to file a notice of appe al wi thi n th ir

ty da y s a ft e r t he mand a te to p e rf

e c t hi s n e w a

pp e a l. Second, under

Rule 27.1(b), a

prematurely

filed notice of appea l is one that is filed in the time period af

ter the jury ’s verdic t a

nd befor e sentenc e is imposed. Fr anks’s Septembe r 2005 notice of a

ppeal wa s filed af

ter the jury ’s ver dict but also after sentenc e wa s imposed. Thus, the September 200 5 notice wa s not filed in the time period re quired to make it eligible to be aTh e ru le s of a pp e llate pr oc e dure us e “ the da y se nte nc e is imp os e d o r s us pe nd e d in op e n c ourt ” 1 and “the day

the trial cour

t enters a n appea lable orde r” to mar k t h e s t ar t i n g p oints for ca lculating a pp e llate de a dli ne s in c ri min a l ca se s. Te x. R. A pp . P. 26 .2 . T he c ourt

of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls s ta te d in Mestas that its opini ons g ranting out-of-time a ppeals should not be re ad to conf lict with the rules of appellate proce dure. 2007 Tex. Crim. App. L EXI S 77, at *10. There fore , we conclude that whe n Mestas states that an out-of -time appea l ha s the eff

ect of restoring the defe ndant “to the position he oc c up ie d im me diate ly

a ft e r t he c ourt sig ne d th e jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n, ” the c ourt wa s r e fe rr ingto the position the defenda

nt occupied immediate ly afte r sentence was imposed or sus pended in open c ourt or the a pp e a la ble or de r w a s e nte re d. Similarl y , w he n th e c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls s ta te d in its opini on g ranting Fr anks this out-of-time appe al that “a ll tim e limits shall be c alculate d as if the conviction had be en ente red on the day that the mandate of this Court issues,” it meant that the deadlines w ere to be ca lculated a s if the day mandate issued w as the day sentenc e was imposed or suspended in open c ourt. Se e Ro dartev . S tat e , 860 S.W .2d 108, 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (h old ing that in a

pp e a ls fr om jud g me nts of c on vic tio n, a

pp e llate de a dli ne s b e g in o n d ay se nte nc e is imposed or suspended in ope n court). 5 prematurely

filed notice w ithin the langua g e of the rule. T h e co u rt of cr iminal appeals ha s g iven addition al direc tion on the effe ct of a n order g ranting an out-of- time appea l which supports this view. I n Me sta s v . S tat e , the court noted: “The eff ect of g ranting an out-of- time appea l is that it restore s the defe ndant to the position he occupie d immediately afte r th e t ri al cour

t signe d the judg ment of convic tion.” Nos . PD-1137-05, 1138-05, 1139- 05, 2007 Tex. Crim . App. L EXI S 77, at *9 (Tex. Crim. App. J an. 24, 2007). The posit ion Fr anks occupied i mmediately afte r he was a djudge d 1 g uilty and sente nce w as imposed in o p en co u rt was that he had not y et filed a notice of a

ppeal or take n ste ps to pe rf

e c t his a pp e a l. T hu s, re tur

nin g him to s uc h a po sit ion wo uld me an ( 1) he wo uld
no t ha ve fi le d a no tic e of a pp e a l in the tim e pe ri od ne c e ssa ry to make it eli g ibl e to b e a pr e ma tur e ly filed notice o f ap peal, a

nd (2) he would be re quired to per fec t his appeal in the usual wa y , i.e., by filing a notice of appea l. This is true notwithstanding that he had filed a n untimely

and inef fec tiveFr anks states in his motion for rehe aringthat on J une 9, 2006, he orally asked the district clerk 2 to s e nd thi s Co ur t ano the r c op y

of his Se pte mbe r 200 5 noti c e of a pp e a l. He c on c e de s th a t th e re is no rec ord of this. This is further e vidence o f t h e p ra ct i cal diff iculties that would flow from the a pp lic a tio n o f r

ule 27 .1 (b ) u

nd e r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s.

6 n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w h i l e a t t e mp t i n g t o a p p e a l t h e f

i r s t t i m e b e c a

u s e h e i s b e i n g r e tu r

n e d ( c o n c e p tu a l l y) to a point in the proce ss before the untimely notice of a

ppeal e x isted. Finally , without the filing of a new notice of appe al in a ca se such a s this, the trial court c lerk is not put on notice that there is a new a ppeal for which a record must be pr epar ed and fo rw ard e d to the a

pp e llate c ourt . Wit

ho ut a new no ti ce ther e is n oth ingto t ri g g e r t he a pp e llate proce ss from an a dminist rative sta n dp o i n t
. T he instant ca use illustrates this point. The court of criminal appe als g rante d Fr anks an out-of -time appe al on M ay 10, 2006, and its mandate issued on J une 5, 2006. Nothing happene d, howeve r, until November 2006, w hen F ranks’ s attorney beg an wonder ing a

bout the appea l and contac ted t he clerk reg ardingits status. Beca use no newnotice of appea l was filed, the c lerk wa s not awar e that there wa s a newappea l. At that point, Franks’ s attorney informed the c lerk that he was rely ing on the September 2005 notice of appe al. Even if a 2

c le rk be c ome s awa

re tha t th e c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls ha s iss ue d an or de r a llo wi ngan o ut- of -t ime
a pp e a l in a c a se , th e c le rk

wi ll n ot k

no w wha t th e de fe nd ant i nte nd s to do un til he take s so me
a ff ir ma tiv e a c tio n. Th a t a ff

ir ma tiv e a c tio n is to f

ile a ne w n oti c e of

a pp e a l. Wit hout a t i m ely

notice of a

ppeal, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of thi s at t em p ted appe al in any manner other than by

dismiss ing it for

want of jurisdiction.7

Se e Sla ton v . S

tat e , 981 S.W. 2d 20 8 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); Ol iv o v . S tat e , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522- 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

The motion for re hear ing is ove rruled a nd the appe al is dismis sed.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Pemberton, Waldrop and B . A. Smith* Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction on Motion for Rehear ing Filed: Mar ch 2, 2007 Pub lis h * Be fore Be a Ann Smith, J ustice (r etired) , Third Court of Appea ls, sitt ing by assig nment. See T e x. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003( b) (West 2005).