## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 1 2 3 4

- 1 1

L A V E R N A

. P F E I F F E R

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E S I X T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

R E D R I V E R C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h K E L L E R

, P

. J

. a n d

P R IC E

, W O M A C K

, J O H N S O N

, K E A S L E R

, H E R V E Y a n d A L C A L A

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. M E Y E R S

,

J

. , f i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n

.

O P I N I O N

A f t e r t h e t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e f o u n d d u r i n g

a t r a f f i c s t o p

, a p p e l l a n t p l e d g u i l t y t o i t s p o s s e s s i o n p u r s u a n t t o a p l e a b a r g a i n

. H e t h e n

a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s s u p p r e s s i o n r u l i n g

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e v e r s e d

, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e

o f f i c e r l a c k e d r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o c o n t i n u e t o d e t a i n a p p e l l a n t u n t i l a d r u g d o g w a sPfeiffe r Pag e 2

b r o u g h t t o t h e s c e n e

. T h e c o u r t a l s o d e c l i n e d t o a d d r e s s w h a t i t c a l l e d a “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” 1

b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f

a i l e d t o f i l e i t s o w n n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. W e g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r 2

r e v i e w t o r e s o l v e a s p l i t i n t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s o n w h e t h e r t h e S t a t e m u s t f i l e a s e p a r a t e

n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d t h e S t a t e w i s h e s t o a p p e a l

a r u l i n g o f l a w u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

. W e h o l d 3

t h a t t h e S t a t e n e e d n o t f i l e i t s o w n n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w h e n i t r a i s e s a c r o s s

- p o i n t c o n c e r n i n g

a r u l i n g o n a q u e s t i o n o f l a w u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c )

. 4

I

.

A t t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s h e a r i n g

, T r o o p e r K u h e l e n g e l t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e s t o p p e d a p p e l l a n t

b e c a u s e h i s “ d o o l e y ” t r u c k d i d n o t h a v e m u d f l a p s

. T h e t r o o p e r n o t e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t s e e m e d 5

Pfeiffer v. State , No. 06-11-00001- CR, 2011 W L 1734065, at *1-4 (T ex. App.—Tex arka na May 1

4, 2011) (not desig nated f or publication).

Id. at *4 n.1 (“ I n its brief, the State ra ises a cr oss-issue complaining that the trial cour t erre d by 2

excluding Kuhe leng el’s testimony reg arding what Perkins told him and that the excluded

testimony provided Kuhe leng el with rea sonable suspicion. Howe ver, the State is require d to file

a notice of

appea l in order to per fec t a cr oss-appe al under Article 44.01 of

the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure .”).

Specifica lly , we g rante d the following g round for revie w: 3

This Court should resolve the conf lict among the Courts of Appea ls conce rning

whether the State must file a notice of appea l under 44.01(c ) of the T exas Code of

Criminal Procedure , and if the State must not file a notice of appe al, re mand this

cause to the Court of Appea ls to address the mer its of the State’s cr oss-issue.

Article 44.01( c) r eads a s follows: “The state is entitled to appeal a ruling on a question of law if 4

the def endant is convic ted in the ca se and a ppeals the judg ment.”

“A ‘ dooley ’ or ‘ dually ’ is a truc k (or some of the [D] odg e [S] printer a

nd [F]reightliner va

ns) 5

with a hea

vy duty rea r end a nd 4 whee ls on the rea

r axle alone. Dua lly ’s ar e better for towing

and ca n take a heavie r load c ompare d to reg ular re ar e nds.”

http:// wiki.answer s.com/Q/What_is_a_dually _truck#ixz z1m6QEdP 9XPfeiffe r Pag e 3

n e r v o u s a n d d i d n o t g i v e d e f i n i t i v e a n s w e r s t o h i s q u e s t i o n s

. T r o o p e r K u h e l e n g e l c h e c k e d

a p p e l l a n t ’ s l i c e n s e t h r o u g h d i s p a t c h a n d f o u n d n o o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t s

. W h i l e w a i t i n g f o r

t h a t r e p l y f

r o m d i s p a t c h

, T r o o p e r K u h e l e n g e l r e c e i v e d a p h o n e c a l l f r o m I n v e s t i g a t o r M a r k

P e r k i n s o f

R e d R i v e r C o u n t y

. W h e n t h e S t a t e b e g a n t o o f f e r e v i d e n c e o f w h a t I n v e s t i g a t o r

P e r k i n s t o l d h i m

, d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l o b

j e c t e d

.

Q : A l l r i g h t

, a n d a t s o m e p o i n t i n t h a t t i m e w h e n y o u w e r e d o i n g t h a t

, w e r e y o u

c o n t a c t e d b y s o m e o n e e l s e ?

A : I r e c e i v e d a c a l l v e r y s h o r t l y a f t e r I s u b m i t t e d h i s n a m e a n d d a t e o f b i r t h

, I b e l i e v e i t

w a s

, a n d I r e c e i v e d a c a l l f r o m I n v e s t i g a t o r M a r k P e r k i n s o f R e d R i v e r C o u n t y

.

Q : A n d w h a t d i d I n v e s t i g a t o r P e r k i n s a d v i s e y o u ?

A : M r

. P e r k i n s a d v i s e d m e t h a t

. . .

[ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : O b

j e c t

, Y o u r H o n o r

. H e a r s a y

.

Q : B a s e d o n w h a t M r

. P e r k i n s a d v i s e d y o u

, d i d y o u h a v e s o m e c o n c e r n ?

[ D e f e n s e C o u n s e l ] : O b

j e c t

, Y o u r H o n o r

. T h a t ’ s h e a r s a y

. B a c k d o o r i n t o i t

.

Q : N o t f

o r t h e t r u t h

. A s t o w h a t h i s a c t i o n s a r e

.

[ C o u r t ] : A s t o w h a t a c t i o n h e t o o k

, t h e o b j e c t i o n w i l l b e o v e r r u l e d a s t h e e x c e p t i o n

.

A f t e r t h e t r i a l j u d g e o v e r r u l e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s o b j e c t i o n

, T r o o p e r K u h e l e n g e l s u m m a r i z e d

t h e f a c t s t h a t r a i s e d h i s s u s p i c i o n s t h a t a p p e l l a n t m i g h t h a v e d r u g s i n h i s t r u c k : ( 1 ) a p p e l l a n t

d i d n o t g i v e “ d e f

i n i t e a n s w e r s o n t h e q u e s t i o n s t h a t I a s k [ e d ] ” ; ( 2 ) a p p e l l a n t ’ s h a n d s s h o o k

v i s i b l y w h e n h e t a l k e d ; ( 3 ) a p p e l l a n t ’ s v o i c e w a s “ r a t t l i n g w i t h n e r v o u s n e s s ” ; ( 4 ) “ a n d o fPfeiffe r Pag e 4

c o u r s e t h e i n f

o r m a t i o n t h a t I r e c e i v e d b y t e l e p h o n e

. ” T h e t r o o p e r a s k e d a p p e l l a n t i f h e 6

c o u l d s e a r c h h i s t r u c k

. A p p e l l a n t s a i d

, “ N o

. ” T r o o p e r K u h e l e n g e l t h e n c a l l e d t h e s h e r i f f ’ s

o f f i c e t o s e e i f a c a n i n e u n i t w a s a v a i l a b l e

. D e p u t y H a m r i c k a n d h i s d o g a r r i v e d a b o u t t e n

m i n u t e s l a t e r

. T h e d o g “ h i t ” o n t h e t r u c k a n d b e g a n “ s e r i o u s b a r k i n g

, k i n d o f a f r e n z y r i g h t

t h e r e a t t h e p a s s e n g e r s i d e o f t h a t t r u c k [

. ] ” B a s e d o n t h e d o g ’ s “ h i t

, ” t h e o f f i c e r s b e g a n t o

s e a r c h t h e t r u c k

. D e p u t y H a m r i c k f o u n d a p i l l b o t t l e t h a t c o n t a i n e d 7

. 1 3 g r a m s o f

m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e u n d e r t h e f r o n t f l o o r b o a r d

.

A f t e r h e a r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s

. A p p e l l a n t

t h e n p l e d g u i l t y t o p o s s e s s i o n o f m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s ’

p r o b a t i o n

.

O n a p p e a l

, t h e T e x a r k a n a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s r e v e r s e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r a n d f o u n d

t h a t T r o o p e r K u h e l e n g e l “ l a c k e d r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o c o n t i n u e d e t a i n i n g P f e i f f e r w h i l e

w a i t i n g f o r a c a n i n e u n i t ” b e c a u s e h i s “ r e q u e s t f o r a c a n i n e u n i t w a s c l e a r l y u n r e l a t e d t o t h e

r e a s o n f o r t h e s t o p a n d e x c e e d e d t h e s c o p e o f t h e i n i t i a l t r a f f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n

. ” T h e c o u r t o f 7

a p p e a l s n o t e d t h e c a l l f

r o m I n v e s t i g a t o r M a r k P e r k i n s

, w h o “ ‘ r e l a y e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n ’ t h a t

Trooper Kuheleng el videotape d the traf fic stop, and the State pla y ed the tape during the 6

suppression hea

ring . The prose cutor stopped the ta pe whe n Trooper

Kuheleng el was he ard

talking to I nvestig ator Perkins on the phone and aske d if “[t] his is when he re lay ed the

information to y ou that g ave y ou the re asonable suspicion that drug s may be in the vehic le? ” The

defe nse ag ain objecte d, but was over ruled.

Pfeiffer , 2011 WL 1734065 at *1, *3. 7Pfeiffe r Pag e 5

g a v e h i m ( K u h e l e n g e l ) ‘ r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t d r u g s m a y b e i n [ P f e i f f e r ’ s ] v e h i c l e

. ’ ” 8

B u t i t d e c l i n e d t o a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s c r o s s

- i s s u e “ c o m p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y

e x c l u d i n g K u h e l e n g e l ’ s t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g w h a t P e r k i n s t o l d h i m ” s i n c e “ t h e S t a t e i s

r e q u i r e d t o f

i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n o r d e r t o p e r f e c t a c r o s s

- a p p e a l u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 o f t h e

T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

. ” B e c a u s e t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, t h e 9

c o u r t f o u n d t h a t i t “ l a c k [ e d ] j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r a n y c r o s s

- a p p e a l r a i s e d b y t h e S t a t e

. ” 1 0

I I

.

W e g r a n t e d r e v i e w t o r e s o l v e a s p l i t i n t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” o r “ c r o s s

- i s s u e

. ” O n o n e s i d e

, t h e F o u r t h

a n d F o u r t e e n t h C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e S t a t e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l w h e n t h e d e f

e n d a n t a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d t h e S t a t e w i s h e s t o r a i s e a n i s s u e o n

a r u l i n g o f l a w m a d e b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t

. T h e T h i r d

, F i f t h

, a n d N i n t h C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s

, 1 1

h o w e v e r

, h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e S t a t e m u s t f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, e v e n u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c )

. 1 2

Id. at *4 n.1. 8

Id. 9

Id. 10

Mizell v. State , 70 S.W .3d 156, 163 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (notice of appea l not 11

require d under A rticle 44.01(c ) of the T exas Code of Criminal Procedure ), aff’d on other

grounds, 119 S.W .3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); McClinton v. State , 38 S.W .3d 747, 750-51

(Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001), pet. dism’d , 121 S.W .3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003)

(per curia m).

Ganesan v . State , 45 S.W .3d 197, 203-04 (Te x . App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d) ( “The State did 12

not file a c ross-appe al and the pr opriety of the district cour

t’s ruling is not before us,” citing art.

44.01(c) ); Strong v. State , 87 S.W .3d 206, 211–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pe t. ref’ d) (sa me);Pfeiffe r Pag e 6

A

. J u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s

A n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ’ s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s i n v o k e d b y t h e t i m e l y f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. 1 3

P r o p e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l v e s t s t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s o f t h i s S t a t e w i t h a b r o a d s c o p e o f r e v i e w

a n d r e v i s i o n o v e r a c r i m i n a l c a s e

. “ O n c e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i s i n v o k e d

, 1 4

e x e r c i s e o f i t s r e v i e w i n g f u n c t i o n s i s l i m i t e d o n l y b y i t s o w n d i s c r e t i o n o r a v a l i d r e s t r i c t i v e

s t a t u t e

. ” F o r e x a m p l e

, a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s m a y r e v i e w u n a s s i g n e d e r r o r

— a c l a i m t h a t w a s

1 5

p r e s e r v e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t b u t w a s n o t r a i s e d b y e i t h e r p a r t y o n a p p e a l

. I n C a r t e r

, w e 1 6

s t a t e d

, “ T h e r e i s a f

u n d a m e n t a l p r o p o s i t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o a p p e l l a t e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e J u d i c i a l

D e p a r t m e n t : A c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r a n t o f a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n t r e a t s a r i g h t o f a p p e a l i n

c r i m i n a l c a s e s ‘a s a r e m e d y t o r e v i s e t h e w h o l e c a s e u p o n t h e l a w a n d f a c t s

, a s e x h i b i t e d i n

t h e r e c o r d [

. ] ’ ” T h u s

, w h e n a d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n

, t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h a v e 1 7

Malley v . State , 9 S.W .3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 2000, pet. re f’d ) (same)

.

Slaton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curia m); Olivo v. State, 918 13

S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 25.2(b).

Carter v. State , 656 S.W .2d 468, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (“Af ter jurisdiction attac hes to a 14

particula r ca use, a br oad scope of re view and r evision has bee n asser ted by appellate courts of

this S tate—one tha t is sti ll recog nized, acknowledg ed and c onfirmed by the L eg islature.”) ; see

also Mizell v. State , 119 S.W .3d 804, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (quoting Carter ).

Carter , 656 S.W .2d at 469. 15

Id. at 468. An appe llate cour t raising on its own a novel point of er ror not brie fed by

the par ties 16

should first affor d the par ties an opportunity

to brief the issue, a lthough “ [w] e re cog nize that

many , if not most, of the ty pes of e rror

that would prompt sua sponte appellate attention need not

be assig ned bec ause the err or involved constitutes an obvious violation of established rule s.”

Pena v . State , 191 S.W .3d 133, 136-38 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006).

Carter, 656 S.W .2d at 468 (quoting The Republic v . Smith, Dallam 407 (Te x . 1841)). 17Pfeiffe r Pag e 7

t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s a n y e r r o r i n t h a t c a s e

. T h i s w a s t r u e b e f o r e t h e S t a t e o b t a i n e d a

l i m i t e d r i g h t t o a p p e a l i n 1 9 8 7

, a n d i t i s t r u e t o d a y

.

M o r e r e c e n t l y

, i n M iz e l l v

. S t a t e

, w e h e l d t h a t

, b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d h i s 1 8

c o n v i c t i o n a n d t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t h e r e f o r e h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e

, t h e S t a t e w a s n o t

r e q u i r e d t o f

i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l b e f o r e i t c o u l d p o i n t o u t a p p e l l a n t ’ s i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e t o t h e

c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

. T h e S t a t e c o u l d h a v e i n d e p e n d e n t l y f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l c o n c e r n i n g 1 9

t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( b ) i f t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t h i m s e l f

a p p e a l h i s c o n v i c t i o n

. B u t b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d a p p e a l h i s c o n v i c t i o n

, t h e e n t i r e c a s e

w a s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w

, a n d t h e S t a t e c o u l d r a i s e i t s c l a i m o f a n i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e w i t h o u t f i l i n g

a n y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. I n s u m

, a p r o p e r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e c o n f e r s 2 0

j u r i s d i c t i o n u p o n a c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

, a n d t h a t c o u r t t h e n h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a d d r e s s a n y i s s u e

o r c l a i m p e r t i n e n t t o t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e r e s t r i c t e d b y

s t a t u t e

.

B

. T h e S t a t e ’ s R i g h t t o A p p e a l

U n t i l 1 9 8 7

, t h e S t a t e h a d n o i n d e p e n d e n t r i g h t t o a p p e a l f r o m t r i a l c o u r t r u l i n g s

, e i t h e r

p r e

- t r i a l o r p o s t

- t r i a l

. I n 1 9 8 7

, t h e S t a t e o b t a i n e d a l i m i t e d r i g h t t o a p p e a l c e r t a i n t r i a l

- c o u r t

o r d e r s a n d r u l i n g s w h e n t h e T e x a s L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f

119 S.W .3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 18

Id. at 807. 19

Id. at 806 (“ There has neve r bee n any thing in Te x as law tha t preve nted any court with 20

jurisdiction over a c riminal case from noticing and cor rec ting a n illega l sentence .” ).Pfeiffe r Pag e 8

C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e

. T h e S t a t e ’ s r i g h t t o a p p e a l w a s l i m i t e d t o t h e s p e c i f i c c i r c u m s t a n c e s 2 1

s e t f o r t h i n A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 a n d o n l y a s p r o v i d e d b y t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t o u t i n t h e s t a t u t e

. 2 2

F i r s t

, A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( a ) e n u m e r a t e s t h e v a r i o u s t y p e s o f “ o r d e r s ” t h a t t h e S t a t e m a y

a p p e a l

. A p p e a l a b l e “ o r d e r s ” u n d e r p a r a g r a p h ( a ) i n c l u d e v a r i o u s p r e

- t r i a l o r d e r s a n d s o m e

p o s t

- t r i a l o r d e r s

. S e c o n d

, A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( b ) p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e S t a t e m a y a p p e a l a n i l l e g a l 2 3

s e n t e n c e

. T h i r d

, A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) a l l o w s t h e S t a t e t o a p p e a l a r u l i n g o n a q u e s t i o n o f l a w

2 4

i f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d a n d h e a p p e a l s t h e j u d g m e n t

. U n d e r p a r a g r a p h ( c )

, t h e S t a t e h a s

n o i n d e p e n d e n t r i g h t o f a p p e a l

— o n l y t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n p u t t h e b a l l i n t o p l a y b y p u r s u i n g a n

a p p e a l

. H i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l c o n f e r s j u r i s d i c t i o n u p o n t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s t o a d d r e s s a n y

i s s u e o r c l a i m p e r t i n e n t t o t h e j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s a p p e a l i n g

.

See Acts 1987, 70 L eg ., R.S., ch. 382 §1. 21 t h

Mizell , 119 S.W .3d at 806-07; State v. Muller , 829 S.W .2d 805, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) 22

(stating that article 44.01 sets out both the substantive limi ts of the State’s rig ht to appeal a nd the

proper proce dures f

or doing so).

Specifica lly , Article 44.01( a) a llows the State to appea l if the order : 23

(1) dismisses an indictment, information, or c omplaint or any portion of an indictment,

information, or c omplaint;

(2) a rre sts or modifies a judg ment;

(3) g rants a ne w trial;

(4) sustains a c laim of forme r jeopa rdy ;

(5) g rants a motion to suppress evide nce, a confe ssion, or an admission, if jeopar dy has

not attache d in the case and if the pr osecuting attorney cer tifies to the trial court that the

appea l is not t aken f

or the purpose s of delay

and that the e vidence , confe ssion, or

admission is of substantial im portanc e in the ca se; or

(6) is issued under

Chapter 64.

Article 44.01( b) provides, “ The state is e ntitled to appeal a se ntence in a ca se on the g round 24

that the sentenc e is illeg al.”Pfeiffe r Pag e 9

F o r p a r a g r a p h s ( a ) a n d ( b )

, t h e S t a t e m u s t f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l n o l a t e r t h a n t h e

t w e n t i e t h d a y a f

t e r t h e c o u r t e n t e r s a n o r d e r

, r u l i n g

, o r s e n t e n c e

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e S t a t e i s 2 5

e n t i t l e d t o a s t a y i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s f o r a p p e a l s u n d e r p a r a g r a p h s ( a ) a n d ( b )

, a s w e l l a s 2 6

e x p e d i t e d p r o c e e d i n g s f o r t h o s e a p p e a l s

. H o w e v e r

, n o s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l y w h e n t h e 2 7

d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s b e c a u s e h e h a s a l r e a d y f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a n d h a s t h u s i n v o k e d t h e

b r o a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

. T h e r e i s a l s o n o “ s t a y ” i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t 2 8

p r o c e e d i n g s o r e x p e d i t e d a p p e a l u n d e r p a r a g r a p h ( c ) b e c a u s e

, w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s

h i s c o n v i c t i o n

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n c o m p l e t e d a n d t h e a p p e a l w i l l

b e a c c o r d e d i t s n o r m a l p r i o r i t y

.

N e i t h e r p a r t y i n t h i s c a s e

– a n d n o p r i o r d e c i s i o n b y a n y c o u r t o f a p p e a l s

– h a s c i t e d a n y

l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y f

r o m t h e 1 9 8 7 e n a c t m e n t o f t h e S t a t e ’ s r i g h t t o a p p e a l b i l l t h a t w o u l d

s u g g e s t t h a t t h e T e x a s L e g i s l a t u r e s u b s i l e n t i o i n t e n d e d t h a t t h e S t a t e b e r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a

n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n t h e “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” s i t u a t i o n

. N o r h a v e t h e p a r t i e s o r a n y c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s

s u g g e s t e d p r e c i s e l y w h e n t h e S t a t e s h o u l d f i l e s u c h a n o t i c e b e c a u s e i t h a s n o i n d e p e n d e n t

r i g h t t o a p p e a l i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n

.

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 44.01(d)

. 25

Id . art. 44.01(e ). 26

Id. art. 44.01(f

). 27

The State c annot, under Article 44.01( c), a

ppeal a ny leg al ruling that is not encompassed w ithin 28

the “judg ment” that the de fenda nt is appealing

.Pfeiffe r Pag e 10

C

. P u r p o s e o f A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c )

A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) p e r m i t s t h e S t a t e t o “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” a s e p a r a t e r u l i n g o f l a w

— t h o u g h

n o t f a c t

— b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d a n d a p p e a l s h i s j u d g m e n t

. A

“ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” u n d e r 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) d i f f e r s f r o m t h e S t a t e ’ s r e s p o n s i v e a r g u m e n t s t h a t r e l a t e

d i r e c t l y t o t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s a p p e l l a t e c l a i m s

. R e s p o n s i v e i s s u e s o r p o i n t s s i m p l y r e b u t t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s c l a i m a n d a s s e r t t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s o r d e r o r j u d g m e n t s h o u l d b e u p h e l d

. A

“ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” a s s e r t s t h a t

, o n c e t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h a s d e a l t w i t h t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c l a i m o f

“ X ” e r r o r

, i t s h o u l d

, u n d e r s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, a l s o a d d r e s s a s e p a r a t e l e g a l r u l i n g b y t h e

t r i a l j u d g e —r u l i n g “ Y ”

— t h a t t h e S t a t e c l a i m s i s e r r o n e o u s

.

T h e S t a t e ’ s r i g h t t o c r o s s

- a p p e a l i s l i m i t e d

, h o w e v e r

, a s n o t e d i n o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n i n

A r m s t r o n g v

. S t a t e

. A n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s c r o s s

- a p p e a l i s s u e “ i f 2 9

t h e S t a t e w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o i m p l e m e n t a d e c i s i o n i n i t s f a v o r o n t h a t i s s u e

. ” T h u s

, 3 0

g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g

, “ [ i ] f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s g r a n t e d n o r e l i e f a n d n o r e t r i a l w i l l t h e r e f o r e b e

h e l d

, t h e S t a t e w i l l n o t b e a b l e t o b e n e f i t f r o m a f a v o r a b l e d e c i s i o n o n i t s c r o s s

- p o i n t s o f

e r r o r

. ” 3 1

805 S.W .2d 791, 793-94 (Te x . Crim. App. 1991) (holding that State could ra ise a “ cross 29

appea l” on the leg al question of whe ther the de fenda nt’s prior convic tion used for e nhance ment

was “ void” as the tria l judge had rule d, but concluding that the State was not e ntitled to have that

issue resolved be cause the def endant did not pre vail on appea l; because the def endant’ s

conviction was a ffirme d on appea l, double-jeopa rdy principles would pre clude the State f rom

retry ing the defe ndant as a

n habitual cr iminal in the same ca se).

G E O R G E E. D I X & J O H N M. S C H M O L E S K Y , 43B T E X A S P R A C T I C E S E R I E S : C R I M I N A L P R A C T I C E 30

A N D P R O C E D U R E § 56:121 at 438 (3d ed. 2011)

.

Id. 31Pfeiffe r Pag e 11

O u r d e c i s i o n i n A r m s t r o n g s e t s f o r t h a b r i g h t

- l i n e r u l e t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s s h o u l d n o t

a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s c r o s s

- p o i n t s i n s u c h c a s e s b e c a u s e t h i s C o u r t a n d t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s 3 2

“ a r e w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o r e n d e r a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s

. ” B u t i f t h e S t a t e i s “ l i k e l y t o b e n e f i t 3 3

f r o m r e s o l u t i o n o f i t s c r o s s

- p o i n t s i n i t s f a v o r

, ” t h e n t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e S t a t e ’ s c r o s s

p o i n t s a r e “ f

u n c t i o n a l l y i n d i s p u t e ” a n d a d e c i s i o n o n t h e m i s n e i t h e r a d v i s o r y n o r b e y o n d t h e

j u r i s d i c t i o n o r a u t h o r i t y o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s

. 3 4

U s u a l l y

, c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s m a y a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s c r o s s

- a p p e a l p o i n t o n l y i f t h e

d e f e n d a n t p r e v a i l s o n a p p e a l a n d t h e c a s e w i l l b e r e m a n d e d f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.

H o w e v e r

, i n s o m e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t h e S t a t e m i g h t o b t a i n r e l i e f e v e n w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t d o e s

n o t p r e v a i l

. A c r o s s

- a p p e a l c o n c e r n i n g a n i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e

, a s i n M iz e l l

, i s o n e e x a m p l e

,

3 5 3 6

For example, appellate c ourts will not address a c ross-appe al in which the State mer ely 32

reque sts a direc tive as to lang uag e or r easoning of the lowe r cour t that does not impact the

ultimate decision. An appe llate cour t should, however, a ddress the State’ s cross-a ppeal if it is

likely to benef it from the re solution of its issue even if the def endant doe s not obtain relief.

Armstrong , 805 S.W .2d at 794. 33

D I X & S C H M O L E S K Y

, supra note 30 at 439. 34

See e .g., Moffatt v. State , 930 S.W .2d 823 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.) 35

(re jecting defe ndant’s sole issue on a ppeal a nd holding that the State c ould cross-a ppeal the tr ial

court’s e rrone ous leg al ruling on a motion to elect, re manding for tria l on remaining counts);

State v. W

ebb , 980 S.W .2d 924, 927 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1998) (court of a ppeals a ddresse d

State’s cr oss-appe al conc erning trial judg e’s r uling on e nhance ment alleg ations beca use double

jeopar dy would not prec lude State from se eking a more sever e pena lty on rema nd, but rejec ted

cross-a ppeal on the me rits), aff’d on other grounds, 12 S.W .3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

Mizell v. State , 119 S.W .3d 804, 805-07 (Te x . Crim. App. 2003). The tria l court’s fa ilure to 36

order consec utive sentenc es whe n a statute re quires the se ntence s to be serve d consec utively

might be a

nother. See, e .g., Bells v. State , No. 06-10-00155- CR, 2011 W L 646938, *3-4 (Te x

. App.—Texarkana

Fe b. 23, 2011, no pet.) (not de signa ted for publication) (noting “ a potential

irreg ularity

in the trial court’ s judgme nt” as it appe are d that defe ndant’s sente nces w ere require dPfeiffe r Pag e 12

a l t h o u g h t h e S t a t e c o u l d i n d e p e n d e n t l y a p p e a l a n i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e e v e n i f t h e d e f e n d a n t d i d

n o t a p p e a l h i s c o n v i c t i o n

.

D

. M u s t t h e S t a t e f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l b e f o r e i t m a y r a i s e a c r o s s

- a p p e a l i s s u e i n

t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s a p p e a l ?

P a r a g r a p h ( d ) o f A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 e x p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e s t h e S t a t e t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

w i t h i n 2 0 d a y s a f

t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r

, r u l i n g

, o r s e n t e n c e i f t h e S t a t e i s a p p e a l i n g u n d e r

e i t h e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( a ) o r ( b )

. B u t t h e r e i s n o s u c h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t w h e n t h e S t a t e

r a i s e s a c r o s s

- a p p e a l u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c )

. W e c a n n o t a s s u m e t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e w a s s o

i n a t t e n t i v e t h a t i t s i m p l y “ f o r g o t ” a b o u t p a r a g r a p h ( c ) w h e n i t s e t o u t t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e

S t a t e t o f

i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. A n d t h e r e i s n o p r o v i s i o n f o r w h e n t h e S t a t e w o u l d b e

r e q u i r e d t o f

i l e s u c h a n o t i c e w h e n i t s r i g h t t o r a i s e a c r o s s

- a p p e a l i s s u e d e p e n d s e n t i r e l y

u p o n t h e d e f

e n d a n t t i m e l y f

i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. O f c o u r s e t h e S t a t e c o u l d n o t r a i s e c r o s s

a p p e a l i s s u e s u n t i l a f

t e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a d a p p e a l e d b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e h a s n o i n d e p e n d e n t

r i g h t t o a p p e a l u n d e r p a r a g r a p h ( c )

.

W h a t w o u l d b e t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e S t a t e ’ s f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l a f t e r t h e

d e f e n d a n t h a s a l r e a d y d o n e s o i f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a l r e a d y h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e ?

T h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h a v e d i f f e r e d o n t h e a n s w e r t o t h i s q u e s t i o n

. T h e F o u r t h a n d

F o u r t e e n t h C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e S t a t e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

w h e n r a i s i n g a c r o s s

- p o i n t a f t e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a s a l r e a d y a p p e a l e d

. I n M iz e l l

, t h e F o u r t h

to be serve d consec utively , but beca use neither

party raised the issue, court de clined to addr ess

it). Another e x ample mig ht be when the trial court imprope rly deletes a deadly wea pon finding

made by the jury

.Pfeiffe r Pag e 13

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e S t a t e w a s n o t r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w h e n

a p p e a l i n g a r u l i n g o n a q u e s t i o n o f l a w u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) b e c a u s e t h e n o t i c e

- o f

- a p p e a l

p r o v i s i o n i n A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( d ) i s e x p l i c i t l y r e s t r i c t e d t o p a r a g r a p h s ( a ) a n d ( b )

. T h e c o u r t 3 7

f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t R u l e 2 5

. 2 o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

, u n l i k e R u l e 2 5

. 1

,

d o e s n o t e x p r e s s l y s t a t e “ w h o m u s t f i l e ” a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e

. 3 8

S i m i l a r l y

, t h e F o u r t e e n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

, i n M c C l i n t o n v

. S t a t e

, n o t e d t h a t t h e 3 9

S t a t e s o u g h t r e v i e w o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s r e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e a f t e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t

a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n

. T h a t c o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e m e r i t s o f t h e S t a t e ’ s i s s u e

, r e a s o n i n g 4 0

t h a t

, a l t h o u g h “ [ u ] n d e r t h e c i v i l a p p e l l a t e r u l e s

, t h i s c o u r t w o u l d n o t b e a u t h o r i z e d t o g r a n t

t h e S t a t e r e l i e f b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e d i d n o t f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. . . . T h e c r i m i n a l a n a l o g h a s

n o s u c h p r o v i s i o n

. ” B e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e f i l e a n o t i c e 4 1

o f a p p e a l w h e n t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a d a l r e a d y i n v o k e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

, t h e

c o u r t d i d n o t j u d i c i a l l y c r e a t e s u c h a r e q u i r e m e n t

.

Mizell v. State , 70 S.W .3d 156, 163 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2001) (“While ar ticle 44.01(d) 37

and Rule 26.2(b) set forth the time in which the State must file a notice of appea l when it is the

appellant, ne ither ar

ticle 44.01 nor the Rules of A ppellate Proc edure reg arding criminal appe als

require s the State to file a wr itten notice of a ppeal ‘ to appea l a ruling on a question of law [when]

the def endant is convic ted in the ca se and a ppeals the judg ment.’”)

, aff’d on other grounds , 119

S.W .3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Id. 38

38 S.W .3d 747 (Tex. App.–Houston [14 Dist.] 2001), pet. dism’d , 121 S.W .3d 768 (Tex. 39 t h

Crim. App. 2003) (per

curia m).

Id. at 750. 40

Id . at 750-51. 41Pfeiffe r Pag e 14

C o n v e r s e l y

, t h e T h i r d

, F i f t h

, a n d N i n t h C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e S t a t e

m u s t f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o r a i s e a “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c )

. T h e T h i r d C o u r t

o f A p p e a l s

, i n G a n e s a n v

. S t a t e

, d e c l i n e d t o c o n s i d e r e x c l u d e d t e s t i m o n y o f f e r e d b y t h e 4 2

S t a t e a f t e r t h e d e f

e n d a n t a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e d i d n o t f i l e a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l

. I n S t r o n g v

. S t a t e

, t h e F i f t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s l o o k e d t o A p p e l l a t e R u l e 2 5

. 2 ( a )

, 4 3 4 4 4 5

a n d h e l d t h a t “ [ n ] o l a n g u a g e i n e i t h e r a r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 o r t h e a p p e l l a t e r u l e s e x e m p t s t h e S t a t e

f r o m t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l r e q u i r e m e n t u n d e r o f r u l e 2 5

. 2 ( a ) w h e n i t i s a p p e a l i n g u n d e r a r t i c l e

4 4

. 0 1 ( c )

. ” T h e r e f

o r e

, i t r e a s o n e d

, t h e T e x a s L e g i s l a t u r e ’ s “ f a i l u r e t o i m p o s e a t i m e l i m i t 4 6

i n w h i c h a n a p p e a l m u s t b e f i l e d u n d e r a r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) d o e s n o t s u p p o r t a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t

n o n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s r e q u i r e d a t a l l

. ” I n M a l l e y v

. S t a t e

, t h e B e a u m o n t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s 4 7 4 8

s i m p l y a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e S t a t e d i d n o t f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l “ a s i t m u s t i n o r d e r t o p e r f e c t a n

a p p e a l

. ” N o n e o f t h e s e c a s e s a d d r e s s e d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a l r e a d y h a d 4 9

j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e e n t i r e c a s e b e c a u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d a n d h a d a p p e a l e d

45 S.W .3d 197 (Tex. App.–Austin 2001, pet. ref ’d). 42

Id. at 203-04. 43

87 S.W .3d 206 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2002, pe t. ref’ d). 44

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 25.2(a) state s, in releva nt part, “[i] n a cr iminal case, a ppeal is per fec ted by 45

timely filing a notice of a

ppeal.”

Strong , 87 S.W .3d at 212-13. 46

Id. 47

9 S.W .3d 925 (Tex. App.–Be aumont 2000, pet. re f’d)

. 48

Id. at 927. 49Pfeiffe r Pag e 15

t h e j u d g m e n t

.

A s P r o f e s s o r s D i x a n d S c h m o l e s k y h a v e n o t e d

, t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e

P r o c e d u r e t h e m s e l v e s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e S t a t e ’ s c r o s s

- a p p e a l i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t

o f p e r f e c t i o n b y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. R u l e o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 2 6

. 2 “ p u r p o r t s

— w i t h o u t 5 0

q u a l i f i c a t i o n

— t o r e q u i r e t h e f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l b y t h e S t a t e n o w w i t h i n 2 0 d a y s o f

t h e a c t i o n t o b e a p p e a l e d

, a l t h o u g h t h e s t a t u t o r y 2 0

- d a y l i m i t o n S t a t e a p p e a l s i s c a r e f u l l y

p h r a s e d s o a s n o t t o a p p l y t o c r o s s

- a p p e a l s

. ” P r o f e s s o r s D i x a n d S c h m o l e s k y o f f e r a n 5 1

i l l u s t r a t i v e h y p o t h e t i c a l t o e x p l a i n w h y t h e S t a t e s h o u l d n o t b e r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l t o r a i s e a “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” i s s u e w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d a n d a p p e a l s :

A c o n v i c t e d d e f

e n d a n t d o e s n o t h a v e t o g i v e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l u n t i l 3 0 d a y s a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n

. 5 2

R u l e 2 6

. 2

, t h e r e f

o r e

, “ c o u l d n o t b e f

a i r l y a p p l i e d t o t h e S t a t e i n [ a ] c r o s s

- a p p e a l s i t u a t i o n ;

t h i s w o u l d p e r m i t a d e f

e n d a n t t o f

r u s t r a t e t h e S t a t e ’ s a b i l i t y [ t o ] c r o s s

- a p p e a l b y d e l a y i n g t h e

d e f e n d a n t ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l u n t i l a f t e r t h e t i m e f

o r f i l i n g n o t i c e o f c r o s s

- a p p e a l h a d

e x p i r e d

. ” 5 3

I n c i v i l c a s e s

, u n d e r R u l e 2 5

. 1 ( c ) o f t h e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e

, a n y p a r t y

“ w h o s e e k s t o a l t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t o r o t h e r a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r m u s t f i l e a n o t i c e o f

D IX & S C H M O LE S K Y

, s u p r a n o t e 3 0

, § 5 5 : 3 6 a t 9 9

. 50

Id. (footnotes omitted). 51

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 26.2(a)( 1). I f the de fenda nt files a motion for new

trial, he may

file his notice 52

of appe al within 90 day s after sentenc ing. T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 26.2(a)( 2).

D I X & S C H M O L E S K Y

, supra note 30, § 55.36 at 99. 53Pfeiffe r Pag e 16

a p p e a l ” a n d m a y d o s o w i t h i n 1 4 d a y s a f t e r t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y f

i l e s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. T h e r e

i s

, h o w e v e r

, n o c o u n t e r p a r t t o R u l e 2 5

. 1 ( c ) f o r c r i m i n a l c a s e s

. A n d t h e r e i s n o r e f e r e n c e i n

e i t h e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 o r R u l e 2 5

. 2 t o t h i s c i v i l r u l e

. T h e S t a t e d o e s n o t s e e k t o a l t e r t h e

j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n o r a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r w h e n t h e d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d a n d a p p e a l s

, 5 4

s o t h a t p r o v i s i o n w o u l d n o t b e a p p l i c a b l e

, e v e n b y i m p l i c a t i o n

, t o “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l s ” b y t h e

S t a t e

. U s u a l l y a “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) s e e k s c o n t i n g e n t r e l i e f

, n o t

i n d e p e n d e n t r e l i e f

. I n t h o s e i n s t a n c e s

, t h e S t a t e ’ s p o s i t i o n i s t h i s : A f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s

j u d g m e n t

, b u t i f y o u a r e g o i n g t o r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

, t h e n ( a n d o n l y t h e n ) y o u

s h o u l d a d d r e s s t h i s s e p a r a t e l e g a l r u l i n g b e c a u s e i t w i l l a r i s e a g a i n w h e n t h e c a s e r e t u r n s t o

t h e t r i a l c o u r t

. T h e r e w i l l g e n e r a l l y b e n o n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” i f t h e

d e f e n d a n t l o s e s h i s a p p e a l

. I n s t e a d

, t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s h o u l d s i m p l y s a y t h a t i t d o e s n o t 5 5

n e e d t o r e a c h t h e i s s u e b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e c o u l d n o t i m p l e m e n t a n y r u l i n g i n i t s f a v o r

, a n d t h e

c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s d o n o t r e n d e r a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s o n a m o o t p o i n t

.

I n s u m

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e S t a t e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w h e n i t

r a i s e s a “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) b e c a u s e

( 1 ) t h e r e i s n o s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f o r “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l s ”

u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c ) ;

The State mig ht, however , raise a n issue conce rning the proprie ty of the sente nce or

of other 54

collater al orde rs, but the cour t of appe als has alwa

y s had the a

uthority to addre ss these matters

under its broa d scope of

revie w when it has jurisdiction over a def endant’ s appea l. See Carter v

. State , 656 S.W .2d 468, 469-70 (Te x . Crim. App. 1983).

See, howe ver, the text acc ompany ing note 32 supra for a discussion of when a

ppellate c ourts 55

should address the State’ s cross-a ppeal e ven whe n the def

endant doe s not obtain relief.Pfeiffe r Pag e 17

( 2 ) t h e r e i s n o l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y c i t e d b y a n y c o u r t o r p a r t y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e

L e g i s l a t u r e

, i n i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e S t a t e ’ s r i g h t t o a p p e a l i n 1 9 8 7

, i n t e n d e d f o r

t h e S t a t e t o f

i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f

o r t h e s e “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l s ” ;

( 3 ) a c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a l r e a d y h a s b r o a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e e n t i r e c a s e b y v i r t u e

o f t h e c o n v i c t e d d e f

e n d a n t ’ s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l ;

( 4 ) t h e r e i s n o p e r s u a s i v e r a t i o n a l e f o r r e q u i r i n g s u c h n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w h e n t h e

S t a t e ’ s r i g h t t o h a v e t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a d d r e s s i t s i s s u e o n a t r i a l c o u r t ’ s

r u l i n g o f l a w i s c o n t i n g e n t u p o n t h e d e f e n d a n t o b t a i n i n g r e l i e f f r o m h i s

c o n v i c t i o n ; a n d

( 5 ) t h e r e i s n o s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n t h a t p r o v i d e s a n a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e f o r t h e S t a t e

t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( c )

. T h e S t a t e c a n n o t f i l e a n o t i c e

o f a p p e a l w i t h i n t h e 2 0 d a y l i m i t s p e c i f i e d f o r S t a t e

- i n i t i a t e d a p p e a l s u n d e r

A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 1 ( a ) & ( b ) b e c a u s e i t h a s n o i n d e p e n d e n t r i g h t t o a p p e a l u n d e r

p a r a g r a p h ( c )

, a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s 3 0 d a y s i n w h i c h t o f i l e h i s n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l

. T e x

. R

. A p p

. P

. 2 5

. 1 a p p l i e s o n l y t o c i v i l c a s e s

, a n d

, i n a n y e v e n t

, i t

w o u l d n o t a p p l y t o a “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” b y t h e S t a t e b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e i s n o t

s e e k i n g t o a l t e r t h e j u d g m e n t o r o t h e r a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r

.

T h u s

, o n c e a c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t f i l e s a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

, t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s h a v e

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a d d r e s s a n y p e r t i n e n t “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” o r “ r e b u t t a l ” i s s u e s r a i s e d b y t h e S t a t e

.

P r o c e d u r a l l y

, “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l s ” a n d “ r e b u t t a l ” i s s u e s a r e t r e a t e d i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r

.

I I I

.

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e S t a t e ’ s r e s p o n s e t o

a p p e l l a n t ’ s c l a i m t h a t T r o o p e r K u h e l e n g e l l a c k e d r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t o d e t a i n a p p e l l a n t

u n t i l t h e c a n i n e u n i t a r r i v e d

. T h e p u r p o r t e d “ c r o s s

- a p p e a l ” w a s m e r e l y p a r t o f t h e S t a t e ’ s

a r g u m e n t o n d i r e c t a p p e a l a s t o w h y t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s s h o u l d h a v e c o n s i d e r e d T r o o p e r

K u h e l e n g e l ’ s t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g h i s c a l l f r o m I n v e s t i g a t o r P e r k i n s

. A f t e r i t s s h o r t

d i s c u s s i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f h e a r s a y t o e s t a b l i s h r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n o rPfeiffe r Pag e 18

p r o b a b l e c a u s e

, t h e S t a t e c o n c l u d e d

, “ T h i s c o u r t s h o u l d s o h o l d

, i f r e m a n d i n g

. ” T h e c o u r t 5 6

o f a p p e a l s e r r o n e o u s l y h e l d t h a t i t d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e S t a t e ’ s

a r g u m e n t

. 5 7

W e t h e r e f

o r e r e v e r s e t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d r e m a n d t h e c a s e t o t h a t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r

p r o c e e d i n g s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.

D e l i v e r e d : A p r i l 1 8

, 2 0 1 2

P u b l i s h

State’s B rief on D irec t Appeal a t 25. 56

Pfeiffer , 2011 WL 1734065 at *4 n.1 (“ Her e, the State f ailed to file a

notice of a

ppeal; 57

there fore , we lac k jurisdiction to consider any cross-a ppeal r aised by

the State”)

.