Court Opinion

ID: 9778037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:30:39.936442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:03.276632
License: Public Domain

McCLUNG, Justice,
dissenting.
I join the dissent. The holding of Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), is clear, “In the absence of a timely, written notice of appeal, the lower court was correct in stating they were without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.” In Shute, the court was more concerned with whether the notice was timely, than with the form of the notice. The court held the *154notice was two weeks late, therefore, the notice did not confer jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, citing Martin v. State, 654 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983), holding that a notice not signed by appellant or his attorney does not qualify as the requisite notice in writing and, a properly signed pro se notice of appeal, filed thirty-three days after sentence, was not timely and failed to perfect the appeal.
We now have Corbett v. State, 745 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988). A fair reading of these three cases together (all out of Houston) would show that to be effective, a notice of appeal must be (1) timely filed, (2) in writing, and (3) signed. Corbett and to some extent Shute seem to suggest the notice can be signed by the appellant or his attorney, perhaps even anyone on his behalf, so long as it is signed.
I find nothing to suggest this Court can extend the time to file so as to allow proper signing or reduction to writing. Sending the case back to the trial court in the face of a clearly deficient notice of appeal cannot create or confer jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
I would not overrule Chambers v. State, 735 S.W.2d 294 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.), and would find support in following it in Corbett v. State, 745 S.W.2d 933, 934 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988).