Court Opinion

ID: 9645396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:23:34.162517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:28.082001
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge,
(dissenting).
To my mind, the holding in the case of Blackman v. State, 20 S. W. 2d 783, is unanswerable, and shows that the appeal in this case ought not to be dismissed.
That case has been here overruled by the court, notwithstanding the fact that it was expressly approved as late as Braun v. State, 158 Tex. Cr. R. 394, 257 S. W. 2d 708. The case of Allen v. State, 138 Tex. Cr. R. 523, 137 S. W. 2d 780, holding-contrary to the Blackman case and in keeping with the instant holding, was there expressly overruled.
The Blackman case announces the correct rule that inasmuch as there is only one court to which an appeal might be given in a criminal case all that is required of one desiring to appeal his case is to give notice of appeal in open court, as the statute, Art. 827, C. C. P., provides, and that no necessity exists to name any court, or the Court of Criminal Appeals, as the court to which the notice of appeal is given.
Here, when the appellant gave notice of appeal in open court and that notice of appeal was entered of record, he complied with the requirement of the law touching the giving of notice of appeal. The fact that the words “The Court of Civil Appeals, Austin, Texas” were added to that notice of appeal could not defeat the valid notice of appeal that had been given, because no authority existed to appeal the case to that court.
If the Court of Civil Appeals had jurisdiction of an appeal in a criminal case a different situation would have been presented, but such is not the law. When a defendant rises in open court and gives notice of appeal in his case, the law fixes the court, and the only court, to which that appeal goes for determination. The naming of the Court of Civil Appeals as the court to which the notice of appeal was given was therefore surplus-age and should be rejected for that reason.
*520Here, this man has been denied the right to have his case heard upon appeal not because he did not do that which the law required of him—that is to give notice of appeal in open court— but because he went further than the law required and named a “civil” court rather than a “criminal” court. The only defect, then, lies in the use of the word “Civil” rather than “Criminal.”
The injury which this appellant has received in the dismissal of his appeal and in not having his conviction reviewed is shown by the fact that the charge of the court upon accomplice testimony was error for which the conviction should have been reversed.
I dissent.