Court Opinion

ID: 9776375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:32:09.999227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:37.934970
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which MEYERS, J., joined.
I respectfully dissent. We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing appellant’s appeal without ruling on the merits of each point of error. ' The Court of Appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction under' Tex.Code CRim. PRoc. art.42.12, § 23(b) and Tex. R.App. 26.2(a)(1), as appellant had not appealed within thirty days after being placed on deferred adjudication.
The majority first overrules this ground for review on the same basis as the Court of Appeals; a defendant who is placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision may raise non-jurisdictional issues relating to the original plea proceeding, such as appellant’s insufficiency claim, only in appeals taken when the deferred-adjudication cotnmunity supervision is first imposed. Ante, at 661-62. The majority goes on to note that the trial court had, on the docket sheet, expressly refused permission to appeal. Ante, at 659-60. Thus, the Court of Appeals could have reached the same result on the alternate ground that appellant’s notice of. appeal did not comply with Tex.R.App. P. 40(b)(1). Ante, at 659.1 The Court of Appeals therefore reached the correct result, regardless of the reason.
In these circumstances, we should either dismiss the petition- as improvidently granted,2 or affirm the judgment of the *663Court of Appeals on a limited basis.3 Because the majority does neither, I dissent.

. See, e.g., Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (court of appeals erred in reaching merits of non-jurisdictional complaints raised on appeal which was taken without permission of trial judge or benefit of written motion filed before trial); Lyon v. State, 872 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (defendant must conform to requirements of Rule 40(b)(1)), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1209, 114 S.Ct. 2684, 129 L.Ed.2d 816 (1994). Appellant did not argue that issue in his brief to this Court.

. Allen v. State, 841 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (decision to dismiss petition as improvidently granted does not constitute endorsement or adoption of reasoning employed by Court of Appeals).

. See Rodriquez v. State, 992 S.W.2d 483, 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) ( Court of Appeals affirmed; "Although we disagree with the Court of Appeals’ reasoning, we agree with its ultimate holding....”).