X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision Appellant timely filed her motion for new trial and the trial court timely ruled on it. The trial court’s authority to enter the order granting a new trial had not been suspended. The order granting a new trial resulted in the judgment of conviction being set aside. Accordingly, there is no judgment or appealable order on which to base appellate jurisdiction. FACTS:Beverly Ann Flowers Beeler appeals from her conviction and sentence for tampering with a government record. HOLDING:Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that once the record has been filed in the appellate court, all further proceedings in the trial court � except as provided otherwise by law or by the Rules of Appellate Procedure � will be suspended until the trial court receives the appellate court mandate. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(g). In Green v. State, 906 S.W.2d 937 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995), the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed authority of the trial court during an appeal in light of TRAP 40(b)(2), which was the predecessor to Rule 25.2(g), and contained the same substantive provisions. Green was convicted of capital murder and the death penalty was imposed. On direct appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the trial court record was filed on Nov. 15, 1993. Appellant’s brief raised an issue complaining of the trial court’s failure to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding appellant’s motion to suppress his pretrial statement. On Oct. 27, 1994, the trial court made written findings concerning the admissibility of the statement. The findings were filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals on Nov. 23, 1994, via a supplemental transcript. In holding that the trial court order setting out findings and conclusions was null and void, the Court of Criminal Appeals specifically noted that under Rule 40(b)(2), once the trial record had been filed with a court of appeals or the Court of Criminal Appeals, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. In Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 637 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000), the Court of Criminal Appeals cited Green for the proposition that once an appellate court obtains jurisdiction, the trial court loses jurisdiction. The statement in Lopez that the trial court loses jurisdiction once an appellate court obtains jurisdiction has been cited as precedent and followed by some Courts of Appeals, see Cochran v. State, 78 S.W.3d 20 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2002, no pet.), but not others. State v. Kelley, 20 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex.App.-Texarkana, 2000, no pet.). In Lopez, the issue was whether a remand on punishment vested the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a motion for new trial. The statement in Lopez that once a court of appeals obtains jurisdiction seemingly addressed those points in an appeal which were beyond the time the record was filed in the appellate court, and during which, therefore, Rule 25.2(g) suspended the trial court’s authority to adjudicate the case except as directed by the appellate court. The obtaining of jurisdiction referenced in Lopez would not seem to reference the time between the invoking of appellate jurisdiction by filing of the notice of appeal and the filing of the appellate record. The court concludes that Rule 25.2(g) and Green should guide this decision. The court concludes that the filing of appellant’s notice of appeal invoked appellate jurisdiction, see Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not establish jurisdiction of courts of appeals; the Rules provide procedures which must be followed in order to invoke appellate jurisdiction); but, because the appellate record had not been filed when the trial court ruled on appellant’s motion for new trial, the trial court’s jurisdiction to consider and rule on the motion had not been suspended. The appellant timely filed her motion for new trial and the trial court timely ruled on it. The trial court’s authority to enter the order granting a new trial had not been suspended. The order granting a new trial resulted in the judgment of conviction being set aside. Accordingly, there is no judgment or appealable order on which to base appellate jurisdiction. OPINION:Johnson, C.J.; Johnson, C.J., Reavis and Campbell, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.