Court Opinion

ID: 9681573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:49.515576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.496841
License: Public Domain

ANDELL, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe the trial court’s memori-alizations of oral notices of appeal constitute substantial compliance with Tex.RApp. P. 40(b)(1), I would deny the State’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and address appellant’s points of error. The majority opinion deviates from this Court’s previous holdings in Jiles v. State, 751 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd), and Mullins v. State, 767 S.W.2d 166 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd). It also declines to follow the principle of substantial compliance with rule 40(b)(1) established in Riley v. State, 825 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1992), which this Court followed in Diaz v. State, 877 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd).
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to dismissing appellant’s appeals for want of jurisdiction.