Court Opinion

ID: 9762042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:09:12.190315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.612839
License: Public Domain

COHEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the decision to affirm the judgment. I withdraw my previous opinion of August 5, 1993, and issue this one in its stead solely to reflect that I also dissent from the decision to deny appellant’s motion for rehearing.
The Court holds that Moreno waived everything by failing to state in his notice of appeal that the trial judge granted permission to appeal or to specify the matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. It does so even though the record before us undisputedly shows that appellant raised by written motion the very points he wishes to raise by appeal and the trial judge overruled the motions before trial; however, it is also undisputed that although appellant did what was necessary to appeal, he failed to imite down on his notice of appeal that he did so, as required by Tex.R.App.P. 41(b)(1). The Court relies on Jones v. State, 796 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), which held that compliance with this requirement of Tex.R.App.P. 40(b)(1) is mandatory. However, the opposite conclusion was reached in Miles v. State, 842 S.W.2d 278, 279 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). I think Miles was right, and Jones was wrong.
In Miles, the court held the defendant complied with rule 40(b)(1), even though he filed no notice of appeal at all. The court wrote:
The record in this cause reflects appellant filled an appeal bond with the trial court on April 6, 1989. The bond is in writing and shows the desire of appellant to appeal from the judgment of the trial court. We find the bond is sufficient to constitute a notice of appeal under Tex.R.App.P. 40(b)(1).
842 S.W.2d at 279 n. 1. This is the opposite of the holding in Jones, and I believe it is not reconcilable with Jones. Because Miles is the better rule, I would follow it rather than Jones, hold that this notice of appeal is sufficient, and rule on the merits of the appeal.
The Miles case has an unusual history. The Miles opinion on rehearing at 842 S.W.2d 278 is dated November 22, 1989, ten months before Jones, but it is reported 46 volumes later in the Southwestern Reporter. The original Court of Criminal Appeals opinion in Miles (which was withdrawn at 842 S.W.2d 278) is reported at 780 S.W.2d 215 and bears two dates: “September 20, 1989. On Rehearing November 22, 1989.” Thus, Jones is the more recent decision, even though Miles is more recently reported. The Jones opinion, however, does not distinguish, overrule, or mention the Miles opinion. Under the circumstances, I think we are free to follow Miles.
The requirement of stating in the notice of appeal that the judge granted permission to appeal or listing the motions raised and ruled on before trial has no purpose whatsoever. It is truly a rule without a reason. Its only function is to take away a person’s right of appeal. It should be avoided if that can be done in a principled fashion. Based on Miles, it can be done in a principled fashion. *664But even if it is avoided in this case, the requirement should still be repealed because it is useless and harmful. Nobody, no court and no party, does anything differently because of what is or is not included in the notice of appeal. In the almost seven years since the requirement was enacted, I have never seen the presence or absence of this information on a notice of appeal used for any purpose, except to dismiss an appeal.
The chronological history of this case shows how useless- it is to require a defendant to write down on his notice of appeal the same facts that are undeniably shown in the record. Appellant filed his defective notice of appeal August 6,1992. The State did not point out the defect until March 25,1993, when it filed its brief. Thus, no “screening” function was served by weeding out this case early in the appellate process due to a defective notice. As normally happens, the defect was not noticed until after the statement of facts, the transcript, and the briefs were filed, and the consequent delay and expense had been incurred. Moreover, cases like this should not be screened out. Why deny the appeal when everybody agrees appellant did what rule 40(b)(1) requires (getting his written pretrial motions overruled)? If the record shows that, the appeal should not be denied just because the notice of appeal does not also show it. Once should be enough. Why should a silent notice of appeal be given more credence than an undisputed record that speaks the truth? At the least, we should give appellant a chance to amend his notice, pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 83, so that it meets the requirements. That is how the Texas Supreme Court has treated similar defects in civil cases; see below. Unfortunately, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held, by a 5-4 vote, that rule 83 cannot be used to cure this defect.1 Jones, 796 S.W.2d at 187.
Does it make sense to render the “death penalty” sanction on appeal — waiver of everything — for failing to do something that nobody cares about at all? Not to me. The Texas Supreme Court has gone 180 degrees in the opposite direction in deciding similar issues. See Grande Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex.1991) (court of appeals may not dismiss a civil appeal for failure to comply with rule 40 without giving appellant opportunity to correct the error, citing Tex.R.App.P. 83); Inpetco, Inc. v. Texas American Bank/Houston, 729 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.1987) (failure to follow Tex.R.App.P. 74 cannot be grounds for waiving all points of error unless appellant has been given opportunity to correct the defects, citing Tex.R.App.P. 83); see also TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Tex.1992) (sanction must be reasonable and not excessive compared to the misconduct that occurred). The United States Supreme Court has held that an attorney’s failure to comply with a similar state procedure rule constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel if it results in loss of the right to appeal. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985). That is what the Amarillo Court of Appeals held in Miles, 781 S.W.2d 608, 609 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1989). That is what this Court held in Jiles v. State, 751 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref d), and in Boulos v. State, 775 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. refd).
I am not reluctant to enforce a reasonable rule, even when the result is harsh,2 but Moreno is losing his right to appellate review for failing to follow a rule that has no purpose. We should not tolerate that. At the *665very least, we should not tolerate it quietly.3
I respectfully dissent and urge that the Court of Criminal Appeals repeal the portion of rule 40(b)(1) requiring appellants to state in the notice of appeal that the judge granted permission to appeal or list the written motions that were raised and ruled on before trial.

. That is particularly unfortunate because the form notice of appeal in this case was prepared and furnished by the Harris County District Clerk for use by attorneys in the courtroom. It contains no place for an attorney to write in that the judge allowed the appeal or overruled the motions. Certainly, it is not the job of the district clerk or the judge to represent the appellant or to practice law by drafting necessary forms. But neither should the court’s own personnel create stumbling blocks by offering, and thereby encouraging the use of, defective forms.

. See Henry S. Miller Mgmt. Corp. v. Houston State Assocs., 792 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied). The result here is harsher than in Miller, where the appellant obtained appellate review of 10 points of error. Here, Moreno has lost his right of review on all points of error.

. Moreno may get appellate review in this case, just as the defendant did in Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). In Shute, the court held as it did in Jones — no review. That holding delayed Mr. Shute’s right to appeal "until some future court grants the relief inevitably required by Evitts v. Lucey." Jiles, 751 S.W.2d at 622. Shute got post-conviction habeas corpus relief under Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon 1993) for the obvious reason that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for failing to comply with rule 40(b)(1). Once the two courts that originally denied Shute appellate review finally gave it to him, his conviction was reversed and an order of acquittal was rendered in an unpublished opinion by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, and the Court of Criminal Appeals refused the State's petition for discretionary review. Thus, Mr. Shute, who was not guilty as a matter of law, got appellate review, albeit after years of waiting in prison. Who can be proud of this scenario?
Of course, Shute got more relief from the operation of rule 40(b)(1) than do most appellants. There is no right for indigents to be represented by counsel in pursuing relief under article 11.07, and nobody (rich or poor) has a right to a hearing. Thus, only the persistent and the lucky need apply. Most of those who lose their right to appeal because of rule 40(b)(1) lose it for good.