Court Opinion

ID: 9679719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:03:38.288811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:18.801711
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
We granted review of the decision of the court of appeals on three grounds. See State v. Boseman, 805 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1991).1 The Court correctly'disposes of ground two, and in passing notices ground one but declines to come to any conclusions regarding “the validity of appeals by the State from municipal court generally.” At n. 3, p. 590.
The question of proper notice of appeal, however, necessarily assumes a right to appeal in the first instance. On that point the dissenting justice insisted that “the legislature has not authorized such an appeal,” State v. Boseman, supra, at 928-929. The parties have thoroughly briefed the matter and presented oral argument; given the manifestly significant importance of the basic issue to the bench and bar, as well as to the jurisprudence of this State, *592we should address it.2 Because the Court does not I only concur in its judgment.
OVERSTREET, J., joins.

. GROUND FOR REVIEW ONE: The Court of appeals erred in concluding that the State has a right under Article 44.01 of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to appeal from a dismissal order entered in municipal court, for a trial de novo in the county court.
GROUND FOR REVIEW TWO: The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the State’s notices of appeal were timely and properly filed, when the notices were not signed by a ‘prosecuting attorney’ as defined in Article 44.01(i), but rather were signed by an assistant city prosecutor.
GROUND FOR REVIEW THREE: The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the County *592Court at Law had jurisdiction, and was without authority to dismiss the State’s appeal.

. One need not delve deeply into the difficulties noted by the Court because there are others more fundamental.
The matter of appeal from municipal court is governed by Chapter Forty-five of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it is a minefield of contradictions.
For example, the last sentence in Article 45.03 may be read to contemplate a right in the State ' to appeal: "With consent of the county attorney, appeals ... may be prosecuted by the city attorney or his deputy;" on the other hand, because appeals by defendant generate a trial de novo it may mean no more than the county attorney may opt to permit the city attorney to handle the prosecution anew.
Another, with respect to appeals generally, Article 45.10 provides they “shall be governed by the rules of practice and procedure for appeals from justice courts to the county courts, as far as applicable,” and according to one of those rules, “In no case shall the State be entitled to a new trial [in justice court],1' Article 45.47; yet, as the Beaumont Court of Appeals would have it, the State "is seeking an appeal on the merits de novo to [the county court at law].” State v. Boseman, supra, at 924 (its emphasis).