Court Opinion

ID: 9771499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:45:24.12315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:32.127122
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The record reflects that petitioner gave written notice of appeal within ten days of sentencing. By refusing to grant relief and to award petitioner an appeal from his conviction upon this fact alone, and by directing the trial judge to conduct a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of petitioner’s waiver of his right to appeal, the majority holds that such a waiver, if valid, does bar appellate review. The majority also quote with approval from Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680, for the proposition that following such a waiver appeal may be had only with consent of the trial court. With these two holdings I concur. I do, however, take exception to the conclusion that a hearing should be held on the voluntariness of the waiver, for the simple reason that petitioner has yet even to allege that the waiver was involuntary. It is significant that the majority opinion nowhere even states what petitioner’s allegations are, but instead merely states the relief sought. I here state the reasons that in my opinion require a denial of relief, and preclude directing the judge of the convicting court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
Criminal procedure in Texas provides several means by which appellate review may be secured. First, appellate review may be secured by giving timely notice of appeal Article 44.08, Y.A.C.C.P. Second, for good cause shown the trial court in the same term of court may permit a late notice of appeal. Article 44.08(e), supra. In that event, however, the finding of good cause must be supported by evidence in the record and is subject to review by this Court. E.g., Martinez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 511 S.W.2d 934, 935-936. Third, by postconviction habeas corpus action, upon a showing *102that one has been deprived of his right to appeal, relief in the form of an out-of-time appeal may be secured.
In the instant case, petitioner waived his right to appeal, but subsequently, within the statutory period, filed a notice of appeal. Petitioner contends that he has been denied his right to appeal. He does not allege any factual basis attacking the vol-untariness of his waiver. Absent such allegations of fact, his position appears to be this: The course of events, showing a notice of appeal filed within ten days of sentencing, invoked his right to appeal. It is my understanding that the majority hold that the waiver of right to appeal terminates the ten day period at that time; the unilateral action of a convicted defendant filing notice of appeal is not effective as a withdrawal of the waiver; and the waiver may be withdrawn only with the consent of the trial court.1 Because appellant did not secure the consent of the trial court to withdraw his waiver of the right to appeal, his contention is without merit. He was not denied his right to appeal; he waived his right to appeal.
Permission to withdraw a waiver of the right to appeal is a matter of grace2 and no grounds therefor need be alleged or shown, as distinguished from permission to file a late notice of appeal, which must be supported by a showing of good cause. Furthermore, withdrawal of the waiver, without more, would only permit perfection of the right to appeal if notice of appeal is then given within the statutory time, unless in addition a showing is made that would authorize a late notice of appeal or an out-of-time appeal. Withdrawal of the waiver alone will permit an appeal, then, only if secured within ten days of the event (see Article 44.08, supra) from which the ten day period is measured.
The proposition that filing notice of appeal within the ten day period automatically withdraws the waiver is rejected by the majority in favor of the rule that the waiver may be withdrawn only with permission of the court. In contrast to withdrawal of the waiver is action seeking to set aside the waiver for cause. The setting aside of such a waiver is relief that may be sought upon allegation of sufficient cause, such as involuntariness of the waiver, and that may be pursued by motion in the trial court filed in the original cause during term time, either before or after expiration of the ten day period, or by an original cause, such as application for habeas corpus seeking an out-of-time appeal, even after expiration of the term. Unlike action denying a request to withdraw the waiver, action refusing to set aside the waiver may be presented to this Court for examination, either by application for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11,07, Y.A.C.C.P., or, in an appropriate case, by original mandamus action.
Petitioner’s application alleges no facts attacking the voluntariness of his waiver. He does not seek to have the waiver set aside; he only seeks to have it withdrawn. This Court is without power to afford him relief upon his claim. If petitioner does have a potentially meritorious claim upon which the waiver might be set aside, his recourse is to file an application for writ of habeas corpus in the convicting court alleging such facts and requesting that the waiver be set aside and he be given an out-of-time appeal. The application before us, however, contains no such allegations, and the record before us at most raises a suspicion that the waiver may not have been voluntary. This Court’s action upon such an application and record directing the judge of the convicting court to conduct a hearing upon the issue of whether the waiver was voluntary constitutes a radical departure from this Court’s established practice of strictly enforcing the requirement that an application for writ of habeas cor*103pus must contain sworn allegations of fact which, if true, would entitle petitioner to relief. Absent a persuasive presentation of reasons, either peculiar to this case or based on some broader principle, I do not favor such a departure from the requirement that the application allege such facts.
I therefore dissent to the issuance of the order of the Court.

. See Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680, in which it was stated in dictum, “a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal would only prevent him from appealing without consent of the trial court.”

. “A favor or indulgence as distinguished from a right.” Black’s Law Dictionary, rev. 4th ed., 1968, p. 826; 38 C.J.S. p. 971.