Court Opinion

ID: 9777956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:28:57.705039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:02.766826
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
concurring.
Perhaps to others, the legal phrase “Notice of Appeal” means nothing. However, to me, it has a great deal of meaning.
But for the fact that this Court expressly states in footnote 3 of the opinion the following, “[W]e are reviewing today only the holding of the court of appeals that the notice was effective even though premature,” I would be compelled to only dissent.
I write only because the majority opinion leaves me with the impression that Rule 306c of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as future Rule 41(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which is poorly drafted, are save-all types of rules, when it comes to giving notice of appeal prematurely. Rule 306c is most certainly not, as many civil cases, too numerous to cite or discuss, demonstrate. Rule 306c will not be of any assistance to any defendant who either individually or through counsel gives oral notice of appeal prematurely, for the simple reason that by its very terms the rule is limited to a written notice of appeal. In this instance, the appellant gave written notice of appeal, albeit done prematurely. Thus, Rule 306c is applicable.
Where the defendant desires to appeal his conviction, I highly recommend to *658counsel or the defendant himself to always give timely and proper notice of appeal and not rely upon some rule exception. View future Rule 41(c) with caution because it is not very carefully worded, which is understandable because that rule, like all of the other appellate rules, was never subjected to public scrutiny. The first sentence of Rule 41(c), read literally, provides that a defendant who appears for arraignment and then and there gives either oral or written notice of appeal, and is subsequently convicted, will have timely and properly given notice of appeal.
In this instance, if the record only reflected the giving of oral notice of appeal, even in light of this Court’s majority opinion of King v. State, 687 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), in which this Court expressly approved the giving of late notice of appeal — even after the judgment of this Court had become final — I would hold that the oral notice of appeal was neither timely nor properly given, and would vote to enter an order for the San Antonio Court of Appeals to dismiss the appellant’s appeal. However, the appellant is saved by the fact that his attorney at one point in time filed a written notice of appeal, although done prematurely.