Court Opinion

ID: 9768430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:02:31.668297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:40.784719
License: Public Domain

BOYD, Justice,
dissenting.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. Appellant Kenneth Joseph Ward, upon his plea of guilty, had previously been convicted of theft. His punishment was assessed at confinement of 180 days in the Hale County jail and a fine of $300, probated. This probation was revoked on October 4, 1984, giving rise to this appeal. In his first four grounds, he asserts that the failure to timely appoint counsel on appeal violated his right to effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas State Constitution. Based upon that premise, he requests we abate the appeal and return this proceeding to its status on the day appellant gave notice of appeal.
I would sustain those points and grant appellant the relief hereinafter suggested by me. To the majority’s failure to do so, I must respectfully dissent. I believe appellant is entitled to relief on either of two propositions.
*906The order revoking appellant’s probation was apparently entered on October 4, 1984. Although the order appointing an attorney is not in this record, appellant was represented at the revocation hearing by appointed counsel. That counsel timely filed a written notice of appeal on October 10, 1984. The Hale County Clerk sent notice of completion of the record to appellant’s trial counsel, but no such notice was sent to appellant. The record consisting of a transcript and without a statement of facts was then approved by the trial judge on October 25, 1984 and filed with this Court on November 20, 1984.
Upon receiving notice from this Court that the transcript had been filed, appellant’s trial counsel, on November 29, 1984, notified this Court that his appointment was only “at the trial court level,” and that he was not appointed on appeal. Implicitly, if not explicitly, this Court accepted this statement of the limitation of counsel’s appointment and, by written order dated December 19, 1984, by per curiam unpublished opinion, abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court for an indigency hearing. In that order, if appellant was found indigent, we specifically directed that: (1) appellant be appointed an attorney to prosecute the appeal; and (2) that the appointed counsel file his brief within thirty days from the date of his appointment. Ward v. State, No. 07-84-254-CR (Tex.App.-Amarillo, Dec. 19, 1984, no pet.). En route to that mandate, we specifically noted that Tex. Code Crim. Proc.Ann.art. 40.09(8) (Vernon Supp.1986) required notice of the approval of the record to a defendant without an attorney on appeal, and that that notice triggers the deadline for filing an appellate brief.
In response to this Court’s order, on December 20, 1984, the trial judge appointed appellant’s trial counsel to represent appellant. Later, provision was made by the appointed counsel for the attorney now handling this appeal. Within seven days of his appointment, on December 27, 1984, counsel designated the transcription of the court reporter’s notes for inclusion in the record on appeal and, on February 12, 1985, moved for an extension of time for filing the transcription with the clerk of the trial court. Since the time within which appellant could normally have designated material to be included in the record pursuant to Article 40.09, supra, had long passed, and under authority of this Court’s decision in Hernandez v. State, 670 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1984, no pet.), the motion was denied. Appellant then, on April 26, 1985, moved to abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions that it be “returned to the posture it occupied at the moment notice of appeal was filed.” This motion was also denied. A statement of facts has now been tendered but, for the reasons outlined above, has not been filed. Accordingly, the record is now before us without a statement of facts.
I recognize that the only information that trial counsel was not appointed counsel on appeal comes from that counsel’s response to the notice of the filing of the appellate record. I also recognize that there is no record that appellant requested the appointment of counsel on appeal and that the appointment of counsel on appeal was made without an expressed finding on the question of appellant’s indigency.
In my judgment, the December 19, 1984 per curiam order of this Court must reasonably be construed to be an acceptance of counsel’s position that he was appointed for trial purposes only. I agree with the majority that, absent a showing to the contrary, as a general rule, appointed counsel for an indignet defendant is obligated to continue to serve on appeal and the authorities cited by them for that proposition. However, in my view, the November 29, 1984 notification by counsel of the limitation of his appointment and the evident agreement to that limitation by this Court, represent an exception to that general rule. I cannot agree that the failure of the trial court in appointing appellate counsel without any expressed finding on appellant’s indigency is material in this appeal. Since appellant was represented by appointed counsel at trial, absent a showing to the contrary, it must be presumed that appellant was indigent for the purposes of ap*907peal. Bush v. State, 557 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). Furthermore, in view of the language of our mandate to the trial court, and that court’s response to the mandate, it is a necessary inference that the trial court was satisfied as to appellant’s indigency. Neither can I agree that the fact that the record does not show that appellant requested appointment of counsel on appeal has any materiality in this ease. Where, as here, an appellant was represented by court-appointed counsel at trial, there is a presumption of appellant’s desire to appeal as an indigent. Foley v. State, 514 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). That presumption is, of course, strengthened by the fact that notice of appeal was actually given. Therefore, the fact that the record may be silent as to whether appellant requested counsel on appeal is immaterial because even if he failed to make such a request, this would not relieve the court of its obligation to appoint counsel. Ex parte Perez, 479 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex.Crim.App.1972).
It is axiomatic that an indigent appellant is entitled to the effective assistance of appointed counsel on a first appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-42, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1398-99, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 357-58, 83 S.Ct. 814, 816-17, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Guillory v. State, 557 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). Moreover, upon timely request, the trial court has a duty to furnish such an indigent appellant with an adequate record on appeal. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 590, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956); Guillory v. State, supra at 120. Without a statement of facts, the ability of this Court to review any trial error which might have assertedly occurred is severely restricted. See Hale v. State, 509 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.Crim.App.1974).
In Simmons v. State, 511 S.W.2d 308, 310 (Tex.Crim.App.1974), the Court held that where a defendant, who was represented at trial by retained counsel but had no attorney on appeal, had made known to the trial court that she was indigent, a duty devolved upon the trial court to hold a hearing to determine that question. Significantly, the Simmons Court went on to say:
If the trial court finds that the defendant is indigent, the court should take the proper steps to provide appellant with a free transcription of the court reporter’s notes. (Citations omitted.) Proceedings may then be had in the trial court in accordance with Article 4-0.09, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. (Emphasis added.)
Id. In this case, such a hearing was not held and counsel not appointed until December 20, 1984, after remand by this Court. Moreover, if an appellant is without an attorney on appeal, he is himself entitled to notice of the completion of the record. Article 40.09(7), supra. It is undisputed that such notice was never given to appellant at a time when, under this scenario, he was without an attorney. The failure to receive that notice not only deprived appellant of notice that the record did not include a statement of facts, it deprived him of any right to object to the absence of such a statement of facts in the record. For us to hold that a critical deadline, i.e., the time for the designation of the inclusion of a statement of facts in the record, had passed prior to the appointment of counsel on appeal would be to effectively deny appellant’s constitutional right to the assistance of counsel on appeal. It would also ignore the apparent holding of the Court in Simmons that in a situation such as this, the trial court has some obligation to see that a statement of facts was included in the record and that this be done prior to the commencement of the time limits set out in Article 40.09, supra.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985), in explicating a criminal’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal, recently stated:
In bringing an appeal as of right from his conviction, a criminal defendant is attempting to demonstrate that the conviction, and the consequent drastic loss of liberty, is unlawful. To prosecute the appeal, a criminal appellant must face an adversary proceeding that — like a trial— *908is governed by intricate rules that to a lay-person would be hopelessly forbidding. An unrepresented appellant — like an unrepresented defendant at trial — is unable to protect the vital interests at stake.
Id. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 836, 83 L.Ed.2d at 830. In my view and for the above reasons, the record shows that appellant did not receive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel at a critical time period in his appeal.
If the position of the majority, i.e., that appellant did have appointed counsel at all relevant times, was correct, it does not change my conclusion. This record would then clearly show that the assistance of that counsel was ineffective within the purview of the holding in Evitts v. Lucey, supra. In that case, Lucey was convicted of a drug offense. A timely notice of appeal was filed, and an appellant’s brief and record were also filed. However, Kentucky appellate procedure also required the filing of an instrument denominated as a “statement of appeal,” which would contain the names of parties, attorneys, the trial judge, dates of the judgment, notice of appeal, etc. The purpose of this “statement of appeal” was to aid the appellate court in processing the appeal and, as the Supreme Court noted, compliance with the requirement for the statement was not jurisdictional.
Because of the failure to furnish the statement, Lucey’s appeal was dismissed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals and that disposition was affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court held that the failure of Lu-cey’s attorney to comply with the applicable rules and timely file the “statement of appeal” deprived Lucey of his right to have his conviction reviewed by an appellate court, the result of which was to deprive Lucey of his due process right to effective assistance of an attorney on appeal. Evitts v. Lucey, supra at -, 105 S.Ct. at 836-37, 83 L.Ed.2d at 830-31. En route to that decision, the Court made the following significant comment immediately following the portion of its opinion quoted above. It went on to say:
To be sure, respondent did have nominal representation when he brought this appeal. But nominal representation on an appeal as of right — like nominal representation at trial — does not suffice to render the proceedings constitutionally adequate; a party whose counsel is unable to provide effective representation is in no better position than one who has no counsel at all.
Evitts v. Lucey, supra at -, 105 S.Ct. at 836, 83 L.Ed.2d at 830.
To my mind, the similarity between the facts in this case and those before the Evitts Court is obvious. In Evitts, as in this case, the defendant was entitled to an appeal to a court of appeals as a matter of right. In Evitts, as in this case, the defendant was deprived of an effective review of his appeal by his counsel’s failure to follow a nonjurisdictional procedural rule. In Evitts, that failure was to file a “statement of appeal,” and in this case, the failure was to designate the inclusion of a statement of facts within a required time period. The Supreme Court’s finding in Evitts that Lucey had been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal, to my mind, in this very similar situation, requires us to make a like holding. Accord: Vicknair v. State, 702 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985). I must also note that Hernandez v. State, supra, upon which the majority relies to support its refusal to permit the filing of a statement of facts was decided before we had the benefit of the teaching of Evitts v. Lucey, supra, and that no petition for discretionary review of that case was filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
In summary, whether or not appellant had counsel during the requisite time period for designation of the record, appellant, insofar as this record shows, without negligence on his part, was deprived of a complete record on appeal and, hence, of the constitutionally mandated right to the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. Therefore, I would abate this appeal and *909remand the cause to the trial court for the preparation and inclusion of a statement of facts to be shown in a supplemental record to be forwarded to this Court as prescribed by Article 40.09(8), supra. I would then allow appellant and the State the periods of time within which to file briefs set out in Article 40.09(9) and (10), supra.
Parenthetically, I would note that the relief which I would grant is not without precedent in Texas even prior to Evitts v. Lucey, supra. In Ex parte Perez, 479 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), the Court found that an indigent defendant was not furnished a statement of facts on appeal “because his counsel determined their duties came to an end when the motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal given.” The Court then held that Perez had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the Court went on to say, Perez was entitled to an out-of-time appeal. However, since it was not then possible to obtain a statement of facts, the case was remanded for retrial. Id. at 285.
I realize that Perez was a habeas corpus proceeding. However, to me the precedent is clear. This defendant, by a similar chain of circumstances, had been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The matter is now before us and, by allowing the filing of a statement of facts, we can now ensure a proper review and effective legal assistance on appeal. Otherwise, under the precedent of Perez and like cases, as well as Evitts v. Lucey, supra, in another proceeding, we run the serious risk of the relief sought being granted with all the consequent delay and expense to all concerned. Moreover, the statement of facts is now available. As in Perez, at a later time that information might not be available, which would result in the necessity for a retrial, if one was possible; otherwise a dismissal of charges might result.
To the majority’s failure to grant the relief I believe requisite, I must respectfully dissent.