## IN TH E C OU RT OF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS O F T E XAS
No. PD-0417-06
F ORRES T L EE STO KE S , App e lla nt
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Discre tionary

Review of Ca se 14-04- 00518-CR of the F ourt e e nth

Court of Ap pe a ls, Ha rris C ounty
W O M ACK , J ., de liv e re d th eop ini on for a u na nim ou s Co ur t. The que stion in t his case is whe ther a docket- sheet e ntry

was suff icient to show

“ pr e se ntm e nt” of

a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l to the tr ia l c ourt . We ho ld t hat it in t his c a se it w a s. Th e a pp e lla nt w a s c onvic te d o f f

e lony the ft and se nte nc e d to fi ft e e n ye ars ’ c on fi ne me nt. He timely filed a motion for ne w trial alleg ing ine ffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel. No hea ringwas held on the motion, which was ove rruled by operation of law.Stokes - 2

T EX . R. A PP . P . 21. 6. Rul e 21. 6 s t at es : “ T he def endan t mus t pre s ent t he mo t i on f or n ew t r i al t o t he t r i al 1 cou r t w i t h i n 10 da y s of f i l i n g i t , u n l es s t h e t r i al c ou r t i n i t s di s cr et i on pe r mi t s i t t o be pr es en t ed an d h ea r d w i t h i n 75 d a ys fro m the d a te w h e n the c o u rt im p o se s o r su sp e n d s se n te n c e in o p e n c o u rt.”

C a rra n za v . S ta te , 9 6 0 S .W .2 d 7 6 , 7 8 (T e x . C r. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); R e y e s v . S ta te , 84 9 S.W
. 2 d 81 2 , 81 5 (T ex. 2 C r. A p p . 19 9 3 ).

T EX . R. A PP . P . 21
. 8 (a), (b). 3 T EX . R. A PP . P . 21
. 8 (c). 4 C a rra n za , 960 S. W . 2d, a t 78. 5 I d. , a t 79. 6 Th e Pr e se ntm e nt R ule A d e fe nd ant i s r e qu ir e d to “ pr e se nt” a mot ion to t he tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n te n d ay s o f f

ili ngit, unless the cour

t, in its discretion, extends that time period. Mere ly filing the motion is not 1 sufficie nt alone to show pre sentment. The trial c ourt must rule on the motion by written orde r 2 wi thi n s e ve nty-f

ive da y s a ft e r i mpo sin gse nte nc e . I f i t f a ils to d o s o b y

the e xpir atio n o f t

his 3 period, the motion is deemed de nied. The purpose of the pre sentment rule is “to put the trial 4 court on a ctual notice that a def endant de sires the trial c ourt to take some a ction on the motion for ne w trial such a s a rulingor a he aringon it.” 5 In Car ra nz a , th is c ourt

he ld t hat th e te rm

“ pr e se nt, ” a s u se d in

the pr e de c e sso r t o Ru le 21 .6 , me ans : [T]he re c or d mus t sh ow the mov ant fo r a ne w tr ia l su sta ine d th e burd e n o f a c tua lly deliveringthe motion for new tr ial to the trial court or otherwise bringingthe motion to t he atte nti on

or a c tua l no tic e of the tr ia l c ourt . T his may be a c c omp lis he d in sever al way s such as, for e x ample, obtainingthe trial cour t’s rulingon a motion for ne w tri a l. 6Stokes - 3

I d. , a t 79- 80. 7 I d. , at 81 (O vers t reet , J. , co ncurri ng). 8 I d. , at 80 n. 6 (overrul i ng G r een , 75 4 S.W
. 2 d 68 7 (T ex. C r. A p p . 19 8 8 ))
. 9 G r een , 754 S. W . 2d, a t 687. 10 I bi d. 11 I bi d. 12 C a rra n za , 96 0 S.W
. 2 d , at 80 n. 6 (quo t i ng C a rra n za , 96 0 S.W
. 2 d , at 81 (O vers t reet , J. , co ncurri ng))
. 13 The Carranza Court said that its holdi ngwas “ essentially the same holdingas that set out in [ a conc urring ] opi nion” written by J udg e Ove rstree t. That opinion stated that the pre sentment 7

“ mus t be dir e c te d to the tr ia l c ourt or ano the r a uth or ize d to a c t on

be ha lf of the tr ia l c ourt ,” and

it

“ may be e vid e nc e d b y

the jud g e ’s signatur e or

no tatio n o n a

pr op os e d o rd e r o r b y

a he ari ngdate set on the docke t. This lis t is not m eant to be e x haustive, but mere ly sug g estive as to how one may fulfill the communication re quirement for prese nting a

motion for new tria l.” 8 Car ra nz a also expressly

overr uled Gre e n v . S

tate , to the extent that itrelied on a p art i cu l ar n o t at i o nas b ei n g s u ff

i ci en tt o s h o w p re s en tm en t . T h er e, a p ro p o s edo rd er s et t i n g a 9 date f or a he aringwas attached to a motion for new tria l. A written notation on the propose d 10 order indicated that the motion was pr esente d to the trial judg e on Oc tober 15, 1985. The Gree n 11 Court had found this notation to be sufficie nt to put the trial court on notice that the a ppellant desired a hearing on the motion. The Carranza Court fo un d s uc h a

no tatio n to be ins uf

fi c ie nt t o 12 show prese ntment “bec ause, a mong othe r thing s, such a notation does not e stablish that it i s the ‘judg e’s notation.’” In the same f ootnote, Carranza supported this proposition by citing to a 13Stokes - 4

I bi d. (ci t i ng G r een , 75 4 S.W
. 2 d , at 68 9 n. 3 (O ni o n, P . J. , dis sent i ng))
. 14 G r een , 75 4 S.W
. 2 d , at 68 9 n. 3 (O ni o n, P . J. , dis sent i ng). 15 S to k e s v . S ta te , 22 1 S.W
. 3 d 10 1 , 10 5 (T ex. A p p . — H o ust o n [14 t h D i st . ] 20 0 6 ). 16 I d. , at 10 4 (quo t i ng C a rra n za , 960 S. W . 2d, a t 80 n
. 6) 17 footnote in PresidingJ udg e Onion’s dissentingopinion in Gree n , which made clea r that the 14 notation was unsig ned and unide ntified. 15 Th e Pr oc e e din g s in

Th is C a se Th e a pp e lla nt i n th e ins tant c a se fi le d h is m oti on fo r n e w tri a l on

June 17 , 2 00 4, the same day that he cla ims to have prese nted it to the trial court. The motion included a re quest for a hearing, a nd attache d to it was a propose d order to rule on the he aringand the motion. The proposed or der r emained bla nk and without the trial judg e’s signature . The only indication that the motion may

have be en pre sented to the trial c ourt comes f rom two handwr itten entries on the docket she et. B oth entries ar e date -stamped June 17, 2004. One e ntry rea ds, “MNT filedprese nted,” with a f

ew a dditional chara cter s at the end which ar e undec iphera ble. This entry

has been c rossed out. The othe r entry rea ds, “Motion New Tr ial prese nted to court no rulingper j u d g e . ” T h e r e ar e n o i n i t i a l s , s i g n atur e s , o r o th e r n o t at i o n s n e x tt o th i s e n tr y. The a ppellant claimed on dir ect a ppeal that the tr ial court a bused its discretion by

failing to rule on or hold a he aringon the motion for new tr ial. The F ourtee nth Court of Appea ls did not
re a c h th e me ri ts o f t

his qu e sti on

be c a us e it h e ld t

hat th e a pp e lla nt h a d n ot m e t th e thr e sh old
re qu ir e me nt f

or pr e se ntm e nt o f t

he mot ion

to t he tr ia l c ourt . Th e Court qu ote d th e state me nt i n 16 Carranza that the notation in Gree n was insuffic ient beca use it could not be attributed to the tria l judge
. It also ref

err ed to the Carranza o p i n i o n ’s ci t at i o nt o th e f o o tn o t e i nP re s i d i n g J u d ge 17Stokes - 5

I bi d. (ci t i ng C a rra n za , 96 0 S.W
. 2 d , at 80 n. 6 ). 18 I bi d. 19 63 S.W
. 3 d 67 (T ex. A p p . — H o ust o n [14 t h D i st . ] 20 0 1 ). 20 I d. , a t 68. 21 I d. , a t 69. 22 I bi d. 23 St okes , 221 S. W . 3d, a t 105. 24 Onion’s dissent in Gree n . The Court of Appe als interpre ted these state ments in Carranza to 18 hold, “Ther efor e, for

a handwritten statement on a doc ket shee t to be evidenc e that the motion for new tria l was pre sented to the trial c ourt, it must be signed by the trial judg e.” 19 The Court of Appe als also discussed its opinion in Da nie ls v . S tate . Da nie ls conce rned 20 the same issue a s the instant case
. There , prese ntment was evide nced by a handwritten docke t 21 entry , dated Nove mber 29, 1999, whic h rea d, “Motion For N ew Tr ial was pre sented to the Court.” The F ourtee nth Court found this notation t o be suff icient to satisfy

the pre sentment 22 require ment of Rule 21.6. 23 The Court justified rea chingdiffer ent conc lusions in Da nie ls and in this case by distinguishing the fac ts of eac h. The Court said, “B eca use Da nie ls followed the Car ra nz a opinion, we pre sume, althoug h it is notspecific ally mentioned in the Da nie ls opinion, that the d o c k e ti ne n tr

y [ sic ] Da nie ls was signed by the trial judg e.” T he Court then noted that the e ntries in this case we re unsigned and g ave no indication of havingbeen ma de by the trial judg e. The Court concluded, “ We cannot pre sume the notations at issue, wer e, in fa ct, made a nd signe d by the judg e. B eca

use these e ntries ar e not sig ned by the judg e, they

do not constitute sufficient prese ntment under Car

ra nz a .” 24Stokes - 6

I bi d. 25 C a rra n za , 960 S. W . 3d, a t 79. 26 I bi d. 27 Th e Court

ult imate ly

c on c lud e d th at, b e c a

us e the a pp e lla nt h a d n ot p ro pe rl y

pr e se nte d h is
m o t i o n , th e t ri al co urtd i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o ni nfa i l i n g t o h o l d a h eari n g. 25 The I ssues On petition to this court, the a ppellant ra ises three g rounds for r eview. 1. Th e Court

of Ap pe a ls e rr e d b y

c re atin ga “ pr e sumpt ion of ir re gula ri ty” to justify ignoring the trial court re cord c oncer ning pr esentment of A

ppellant’s Motion fo r N e w T ri a l. 2. Th e Court

of Ap pe a ls e rr e d b y

mis statin git s own pr e c e de nt, a lon gwi th that of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to conc lude that a doc ket-shee t entry ref lecting prese ntment of Appellant’s Motion for N ew Tr ial is insufficient to show the motion was a ctually

prese nted. 3. The Court of Appe als err ed by confusinga wr itten order c onstitut ing app e a la ble e rr or wi th t he do c ume ntatio n n e c e ssa ry to r e fl e c t th e thr e sh old re qu ir e me nt o f p re se ntm e nt o f a Mo tio n f or Ne w T ri a l. Be cause the grounds ce nter on the same issue and we re a rgued tog ether

in the appellant’ s brief,
we a ddress them a s one her e. Carranza did not discuss all of the way s in which the pre sentment requir ement mig ht be fulfilled. B ut the one thingabout which we can ha ve no doubt af

ter Carranza is that there a re many way s to show presentment of a motion for new

trial to the trial cour

t. The opinion expressly said so. It also g ave e x amples of those c ommunications which will and will not

26
su ff ic e . “ [O]bt a ini ngthe tr ia l c ourt ’s ru lin gon a mot ion fo r n e w tri a l,” fo r e xamp le , is 27Stokes - 7

Ib id
. (ado p t i ng l anguage o f O vers t reet , J. , co ncurri ng op i ni o n). 28 I d. , at 7 8 ; R eye s , 849 S. W . 2d, a t 815. 29 C a rra n za , 960 S. W . 2d, a t 80 n
. 6. 30 s u ff i ci en t , as i s a j u d ge’ s s i gn ature o na p ro p o s edo rd er . Onth e o th er h an d , m er el y

fi l i n g a 28 mot ion is i ns uf fi c ie nt. 29 Wit h reg ard to the Court of A ppeals’ disc ussion of Da nie ls , if the do c ke t- sh e e t e ntr

y in that case had bee n signe d by the judg e, it would fall within the categ ory of communications that meet the pr esentment re quirement. B ut that does not mean that ther e ar e no other way s of sh ow ingthat a

mot ion fo r n e w tri a l ha s b e e n p re se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt . Although Carranza overr uled the holdingin Gree n that an unsig ned notation on a proposed or der satisfies the prese ntment require ment, that notation was sig nificantly differ ent 30 f r o mth e o n e i nth e i n s t an tc a s e , w h i c hw a s o na d o c k e ts h e e t . P r o p o s e d

o r d e r s ar e p r e p ar e d

b y, and in t he po sse ssi on

of , th e de fe ns e atto rn e y

(o r t he de fe nd ant pro s e ). An unsigned notation on such a doc ument cannot c onfidently be attributed to the c ourt. This is the basis of the Car ra nz a require ment that there be some indication that the notation on such a docume nt be a “ judge ’s notation.” A docke t sheet, on the other hand, is far

more re liable as a

n indicator of the trial judg e’s decisions and the busine ss of the cour t. I t is more likely

that only the judg e and those authorized to act on his or her

behalf have a cce ss to the docket shee ts and ca n make e ntries to them. It may be unnec essar

y to require an additional showingthat a docke t-sheet e ntry proper ly ref lects the
e ve nts of any pa rt ic ula r c a se . We may

the re fo re pr e sume that th e no tatio n o n th e do c ke t sh e e t inStokes - 8

St okes , 221 S. W . 3d, a t 104. 31 G r een , 75 4 S.W
. 2 d , at 68 9 n. 3 (O ni o n, P . J. , dis sent i ng). 32 this case g ives an a ccur ate a ccount of the motion’s disposit ion without need for the trial judg e’s signature. The Court of Appe als conc luded that a ha ndwritten statement on a

docket she et must be signe d by the trial judg e. It stated, with reg ard to Judge O nion’s dissenting opinion, “The Carranza court c ited with approva l a footnote fr om the dissenting opinion in Gree n , which stated that, for a handwr itten notation to be evidence of pre sentment, it must be signed by the trial jud g e .” We d o n ot r e a d Jud g e On ion ’s fo otn oteto s tand fo r s uc h a

ru le . T he fo otn ote sa

y s: 31 The majority

say s the motion was “timely ... pre s en t ed to the cour t.” What the majority does not make c lear

is that this s tatement is based only on an unsig ned and un ide nti fi e d h and

wr itt e n n otatio n o n th e la st pa g e of the sa id m oti on “ Pr e se nte d to J udg e 10-15- 85. No Date set on hearing.” Who made such notation is not shown by the record and it is not supported else wher e in the re cord. This Court is not informed what “pr esenta

tion” meant to the individual makingthe notation, be he or she a le g al secr etar y , law clerk, “gof

er,” attorney , cler

k or whoe ver. N or ar e the c ircumstance s under which the motion was “pr esente d” re veale d. 32 Nowher e her e is it ex pressly stated that a judg e’s signature is nece ssary to satisfy the require ment. And we do not r ead the Carranza court’s use of the footnote to support the proposition that a signature is the exclusive method for showingthat a notation was in fa ct the “judg e’s notation.” F urthermor e, as w e discussed a bove, a notation on a proposed or der a nd an entry on a docke t sheet ar e suff iciently distinguishable that we think the Court of Appea ls drew an incor rec t conclusion in looking to the re quirement for a “judg e’s notation” in or der to support its de te rm inatio n th at a

jud g e ’s signatur e is n e c e ssa ry on a do c ke t sh e e t.Stokes - 9

T EX . C O N ST . a r t . V , § 6. 33 What we may

take, then, f

rom the Carranza evaluation of Gree n , is to a dd to t he sh or t li st of examples of what does and doe s not constitute presentment. F or we know that a notation such as that desc ribed in Judge Onion’ s footnote (a n anony mous notation at the end of a proposed order) will not suffice. A side from this, many options for fulfilling the require ment may rema in. The State ra ises a jurisdictional issue base d on the fa ctual-c onclusivity clause of the Texas Consti tution. The clause pr ovides that the dec ision of a direc t-appe al cour t “shall be
c on c lus ive on

a ll q ue sti on s o f f

a c t br ou g ht b e fo re the m on a pp e a l or e rr or .” Th e State

33 acknow ledg es that this court has jurisdiction to revie w whethe r the Court of Appe als used the pr op e r s tand ard

in a na ly zingthe a de qu a c y

of the a pp e lla nt’ s p re se ntm e nt o f t

he mot ion . It argue s, howeve r, that this court does not have jurisdiction to dis turb the Court of Appe als’ fa ctual finding s reg ardingthe re liability of the doc ket-shee t entry . We rejec t the State’s contention be c a us e thi s w a s n ot a

qu e sti on fo r a fa c t- fi nd e r, su c h a s a

tr ia l c ourt

or a jur y . Rathe r, thi s is a question of proc edura l require ment subject to modification by the rule- makingpower

of the Court . In th is i ns tanc e , th e fa c tua l- c on c lus ivi ty c la us e do e s n ot l imi t th is c ourt ’s a uth or ity to revie w the Court of Appe als’ dec ision. Conclusion The doc ket-shee t entry , “Motion New Trial prese nted to court no rulingper judg e,” w as s u f f ic ie n t t o s h o wth at t

h e mo ti o nw a s p r e s e n te d

to th e tria l c o urt a s r e qu ir e d b y Ru le 2 1
. 6
. We
vacate the judg ment of the Court of Appe als and re mand this case to that c ourt for a n analy sis of the me ri ts o f t

he a pp e lla nt’ s c la im.Stokes - 10

Deliver ed F ebrua

ry 11, 2009. Publis h.