i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 39 3- CR Mary S. RO BER TS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 226th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-6404A Honora ble Sid L . Har le, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 1, 2008 DI SMI SSED FOR L ACK OF J URI SDI CTI ON The motion for re hear ing f iled by appellant, Mary S. Rober ts, is denied. This court’s opinion
an d o r d e r d a te d A u g u s t 27 , 2 0 0 8 , ar e w it

h dr aw n , an d th is o p in io n an d ju d g me n t a r e s u b s ti tute d
. We substitut e this opini on to addre ss Roberts’s arguments reg ardingthis court’s prior holding in Ri v e ra
v . S tat e , 940 S.W .2d 148 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Th e tr ia l c ourt

imp os e d s e nte nc e in t

he un de rl y ingcase on Februar y 21 , 2 00 8. B e c a

us e appellant timely

filed a motion for ne w trial on Mar ch 20, 2008, the notice of appe al was due to be04
- 08
- 00 39 3- CR

- 2- filed on May

21, 2008. T EX . R. A PP . P
. 2 6 .2 (a )( 2) ; Ro da rtev . S tat e , 8 6 0 S. W. 2 d

1 0 8 , 1 0 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1993) (time limit for perfe cting appea l from judgme nt of conviction beg ins to run on day sentenc e is imposed or sus pended in open court, not on day written judg ment is signed) . A motion for e x tension of time to file the notice of appea l w as due w ithin the fifteen- day g rac e per iod, which expired on J une 5, 2008. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. Appellant filed her notice of a

ppeal in the tria l court on May 30, 2008, but did not file a motion for extension of tim e. On J une 26, 2008, we order ed appellant to show cause in w riting w hy this appeal should not be dismiss ed for lac k of jurisdiction, noting “ When a notice of appea l is filed within the fifteen- day g rac e per iod but no tim ely motion for extension of tim e is filed, the a ppell at e cour

t lacks jurisdiction.” Ol iv o v . S

tat e , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant re sponded by reque sting that this court c onstrue her Statement of I nability to Affor d Counsel, which was f iled
on May 20 , 2 00 8, a s a

tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l c iti ng case s from o the r a pp e llate c ourt s a s su

pp or t. I n our orig inal opinion, we re lied on our prior de cision in Ri v e ra , 94 0 S.W. 2d a t 14 9, in w hic h th is
c ourt e xpre ssl y re je c te d a re qu e st to co ns tr

ue a pa up e r’ s o a th a

nd re qu e st f or a pp e llate c ouns e l a s a timely notice of appea l. I n her motion for rehe aring , Roberts explained that she failed to c ite Ri v e ra in her re sponse or make any eff ort to distinguish it because subsequent rule chang es have adopted
a more liberal a

pproac h in determining the s ufficie ncy of a notice of appea l. Roberts cites the Te x as Court of Criminal Appeals’s de cision in J on es v . S tat e , 98 S.W .3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), and Fe w v . S tat e , 2 30 S.W. 3d

18 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ), a s su pp or t. Although the opinion in Fewcontains g ener al lang uag e re g ardingthe liber ali zation of the prior jurisdictional appr oach taken by the Court of Criminal Appea ls, in Few , the appe llant had filed a timely notice of a

ppeal but included the wrongtrial court c ause numbe r. 230 S.W.3d at 186. The04
- 08
- 00 39 3- CR

- 3- c ourt no te d th a t th e Te xas R

ule s o f A pp e llate Pr oc e dure we re a me nd e d in 20 02 “ to p re ve nt t

ri via l,
re pa ir a ble mis take s o r d e fe c ts f

ro m di ve sti nga

pp e llate c ourt s o f j ur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r the me ri ts of bot h S t ate a

nd defe nse appe als in criminal ca ses. Def ective notice s of appe al may now be amende d at any

time before the appe aling party ’s brief is filed[.] ’” Id . at 187. The Fewcourt c ited the cour t’s prior opinion in Ba

y le ss v . S tat e , which also addre ssed t he abilit y to amend a notice of appea l to corre ct a de fec t prior to the filing of the a ppellant’s brie f. Id
. at 18 9 (c i t i n g B a yl ess v. Sta te , 91 S.W .3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)). Howe ver, the Fewcourt a lso stated, “The rules thus ‘re tain the require ment of notice of appea l. But they now permit amendment to c ure appar ently any defe cts in notices of a

ppeal.’ ” Id . (quot i n g 4 3 A Georg e E. Dix & Robert O. D awson, Criminal Prac tic e an d P ro c e du re § 43.251a at 192 ( 2d ed. Supp. 2005)). Jones inv o lv e d a h a

b e a s a p p li c a ti o n f

o r an o u t- o f

- ti me a p p e a l, h o w e v e r , it c an b e r ead a s adopting a more liberal approa ch to c onstruing documents as notices of appe al
. T h e Jones court
no te d th e qu e sti on

wa s “ wh e the r the a

pp e lla nt s uf fi c ie ntl y manif e ste d h is d e sir e to a

pp e a l so a s to put the trial court on notice that it must deter mine whether the appellant was indigen t an d , i f so, appoint appellate counsel.” 98 S.W .3d at 702. The c ourt noted that appe llant’s trial attorney filed
a “ Mo tio n to With dr aw a

nd De fe nd ant’ s Re qu e st f

or Court Ap po int e d Co un se l” wi th a n a ff ida vit of indige ncy

attache d. Id
. Th e c ourt fu rt he r not e d tha t the mot ion

c on ta ine d a

pa ra g ra phsp e c if ic a lly statin g a pp e lla nt’ s in te nt t o r e qu e st a

pp oin te d c ouns e l “ ‘f

or the purp os e of

a mot ion f or ne w tri a l, appea l and ... a copy

of the c ourt repor

ter’s note s.’” Id
. at 7 0 3
. T h e c o urt co n cl u d ed , “[ t ] h e l an gu age of the motion and affidavit makes c lear the appe llant’s desire to a ppeal.” Id . As a re sult, the court instructed the lowe r cour

t to gr ant an out-of

-time appe al. Id . at 704.04
- 08
- 00 39 3- CR

- 4- I n Ph arris v . S

tat e , 196 S.W .3d 369, 372 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.), the appellant f

iled a notice of

appea l after

the trial cour

t signe d an orde r re lati n g t o ap pellant’s bond. Be cause the appe llant did not file a second notice of appe al af ter the tria l court issued a subse quent order modify ing the bon d , t h e S t at e argued that the a ppeal wa s moot as to the first order , and the
c ourt la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to c on sid e r the se c on d or de r. 19 6 S. W.3 d at 37 2. Th e Ho us ton F ir st C ourt , ci t i n g Jones , reje cted this argument noting that the a ppel l an t had filed a

“Motion to Suppl ement Record on A

ppeal” s t at i n g the appe llant’s desire to c halleng e that orde r also. Id . at 372-73. The Ho us ton F ir st C ourt

a sse rt e d th a t th is d oc ume nt wa s suf fi c ie nt t o d e mon str a te a

pp e lla nt’ s d e sir e to appea l. Id . at 37 2; s e e a l s o H a l l v . S t ate , No. 11- 0 5
- 0 0 2 2 2
- CR , 2 0 0 6 WL 9 4 4 6 4 7 , a t * 1 ( T e x. Ap p. —E a stl and

Ap r. 13 , 200 6, pe t. re f’ d) (c on str uin g mot ion re qu e sti ng a

pp oin tme nt o f a

pp e llate attorney as a suf ficient notice of appe al). O nth e o th e r

h an d , in Al eja nd

ro v . S tat e , No. 14-06-00539- CR, 2006 W L2074819, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] J uly 27, 2006, pet. re f’d) (not d es i gn at ed for publication), appellant’ s counsel asked the Houston Fourte enth Court to consider a ppellant’s paupe r’s oath and a desig nation of re cord on a ppeal a s sufficient to show a ppellant’s int en t t o ap p eal. The Houston F ourt e e nth

Court he ld, “ Al tho ug h th e Court of Cr imi nal App eals ma

y c on sid e r t

he se fa c ts i n deter mining whe ther t o gra n t an out-of- time appea l, J on es v . S tat e , 9 8 S. W. 3 d

7 0 0 , 7 0 3
- 0 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2003), the cour t of appe als must dism iss wher en [ sic] no timely notice of a

ppeal ha s been filed.” Al e jan dr o , 2 0 0 6 W L2 0 7 4 8 1 9 , at * 1 (c i t i n g Sla ton v . S tat e , 9 81 S.W. 2d

20 8, 21 0 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1998)). Si mi la r ly , in Cur

riev . S tat e , N o . 0 9
- 0 6
- 2 2 5
- CR , 2 0 0 6 WL 2 5 0 6 4 1 9 , a t ( 1 ( T e x. App.—B eaumont Aug . 30, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication), t he B eaumont cour t was04
- 08
- 00 39 3- CR

- 5- asked to co n s i d er a d ocument entitled “Paupe r’s Oath on Appeal” as a notice of appe al. The Be aumont court interpr eted Jones a s ho ldi ng an a pp e a l w a s n ot t ime ly

pe rf e c te d w he n a

mot ion to withdraw and reque st for appointed counsel was filed but not a notice of appea l. Id . The B eaumont court noted, “The Court of C riminal Appea ls held the documents put the trial c ourt on notice of the defe ndant’s desire to appea l, but did not hol d that the documents functioned as a notice of appea l.” Id
. Although the court gra nted an out-of-time appeal in Jones , the B eaumont cour t asserte d, “As a

n intermediate appellate court, we are not authorized to gr ant out-of- time appea ls.” Id
. Finally , in Ba e

z v . S tat e , 235 S.W .3d 839 (Tex. Ap p . — T ex ar kana 2007, pe t. ref’ d), the Texarkana

court re fused to construe a motion to withdraw a s co u n s el - which mentioned the defe n d an t ’s desire to a

ppeal a nd the def

endant’ s expressed intere st in appealing - as a notice of appea l. 235 S.W .3d at 840-41. The Texarkana court acknow ledg ed the c ourt’s holding in Fewand its need to “attempt to be very liberal in the c onstruction of i nstruments which are filed so as to not deny the appea l of a cr iminal case ba sed on the wa nt of proper

form.” Id . at 840. The Te x arka na court conclude d, howeve r, that even unde r the more rela x ed or liber al standar d direc ted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, it was not convinc ed that it should construe a statement extracted f

rom an attorne y ’s motion to withdraw as a notice of appe al. Id . The Te x arka na cour t rea soned: [S ]houl d we deem this ty

pe of languag e (w hich is hidden within a document whic h bear s no appar ent relation to providing a noti ce of appea l) adequate, pra ctically any lang uag e conta ined within any ty pe of doc ument that indicated t h at Ba ez was c o n s id e r in g f

il in g an a p p e a l w o u ld b e s u f

f ic ie n t to s e r

v e a s a n o ti c e o f

a p p e a l. We believe that to do so would be tantamount [t o] di spensing with the nece ssity of filing any such notice. Wit hout dir ection from the Te x as Court of Criminal Appea ls, we will not saddle ourselves with the a dded re sponsibili ty of exploring e very

nook and cra nny of a r ecor d--e ven in unlikel y p lace s--to see k out lang uag e that mig ht be stretche d to conce ivably

serve as a “ notice of a

ppeal.” Id . at 841.04
- 08
- 00 39 3- CR

- 6- I n this case, the only

document filed by

Roberts is a Statement of Inab i l i t y to Affor d Counsel. The word a

ppeal is neve r mentioned in the doc ument. Although w e ac kn o wl ed ge the decisions subsequent to Ri v e ra have a dopted a more liberal policy , we hold that Roberts’s statement is n ot a su ff

ic ie nt not ic e of a

pp e a l. Ev e n und e r the mor e lib e ra l po lic y , th e do c ume nt m us t in so me
manner allude to the desire to appea l or we w ould be saddled “ wi t h t h e ad d ed re sponsibili ty of exploring ever

y nook and cra

nny of a rec ord-- even in unlikely place s--to seek out la n gu age that might be stretche d to c onceiva bly serve as a ‘notice of

appea l.’” Baez , 2 35 S.W. 3d a t 84 1. B e c a

us e appellant’ s notice of a

ppeal wa s untimely

filed, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant may pursue an out-of-time appeal by filing an application for writ of habe as cor pus. See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt . 1 1. 07 ; At e r v . E igh th C ou rt o f A pp e als , 8 0 2 S. W. 2 d

2 4 1 , 2 4 3 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); Ri v e ra , 940 S.W .2d at 149. Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice PUB L I SH