Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Oct. 5, 2001, the trial court signed a judgment memorializing the appellee’s sentence of two years confinement in a state jail facility for a state jail felony theft conviction. About nine months later on June 25, 2002, the same trial court (but a different, visiting judge) signed an order entitled “judgment on [appellee's] motion for reconsideration of punishment” that reduced appellee’s sentence to 300 days in the county jail and a fine of $2000 “to run concurrent.” The state appealed but the court of appeals dismissed the state’s appeal for want of jurisdiction because, as we understand it, the state was appealing the trial court’s “jurisdiction to act” and not an order that “modifies a judgment.” HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court construes Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.01(a)(2) according to its “plain [textual] meaning” unless it is ambiguous or construing it according to its “plain [textual] meaning” will lead to “absurd consequences.” The “plain” language of Article 44.01(a)(2), is unambiguous, and it authorizes the state to appeal the trial court’s order that modified its previous judgment regardless of the legal grounds for the appeal (the trial court’s “jurisdiction to act”) and regardless of how the court of appeals characterized this appeal. This construction of Article 44.01(a)(2) does not lead to “absurd consequences.” It also does not contradict the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. �3731, which is the model for Article 44.01 generally. The court of appeals misapplied State v. Baize, 981 S.W.2d 204 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998), to conclude that the state was appealing “something other” than the trial court’s order modifying its previous judgment. In Baize, this court held that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over the state’s appeal because the state was not appealing a “sentence” under Article 44.01(b), which authorizes the state to appeal “a sentence in a case on the ground that the sentence is illegal.” The court stated that courts “may look behind the State’s facial allegation [that it is appealing a sentence] to determine whether it is in fact”appealing a sentence and not something else.’” The court of appeals decided that this also meant looking to the “substance of the State’s appeal” to determine whether the state was appealing an order that modified a judgment. Baize, however, did not look to the “substance of the State’s appeal” to determine whether the state was appealing a “sentence.” On the contrary, Baize decided that it would be error to focus on the merits of the appeal rather than whether the state was appealing on proper grounds. Here, although the state argued the questioned order was entered after the trial court lost its plenary jurisdiction, the appeal was predicated upon the state’s right to appeal an order that modified the judgment. OPINION:Hervey, J.; Keller, PJ., Meyers, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., joined. Price, J., concurred.

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.