X

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 Nov, 13, 2003, the state indicted Lawrence Wendell Few for solicitation to commit capital murder in Cause No. 20030D05342. For nearly two years, the state and defense filed numerous documents and conducted pretrial litigation under that cause number. The state then re-indicted Few in Cause No. 20050D04727. On Oct. 12, 2005, the state read the new indictment with the new cause number in open court. Few pleaded not guilty. Meanwhile, both the state and defense continued to file documents under the earlier cause number. On Oct. 21, 2005, the state filed an Agreed Motion to Carry Over, noting that it had recently re-indicted Few in a new cause number and asking the court to allow the record from the old number to be carried over to the new number. The trial court granted the motion and ordered that “all motions, notices, records, and orders from cause number 20030D05342 should be carried over to cause number 20050D04727.” Less than two weeks later, the trial court tried and convicted Few under the latter cause number. The court sentenced Few on Nov. 3, 2005. Few filed his pro se notice of appeal that very day, mistakenly citing the earlier cause number. The clerk notified all parties that “it appears that the record is due February 07, 2006.” On Dec. 9, 2005, over a month after the case was tried under the “05″ cause number, the state filed a motion to dismiss the former cause number. The trial court granted that motion. On the same day, the trial court signed a certification of Few’s right of appeal, stating that Few had the right to appeal his conviction. The trial court captioned this document “The State of Texas vs. Lawrence W. Few,” and listed yet a third cause number, 20050D05342, apparently an amalgam of both cause numbers. The 8th Court of Appeals, noting the discrepancy between the numbers on the notice of appeal and the certification of appeal � both of which were incorrect � ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine Few’s ability to hire an attorney and which case Few sought to appeal. The state asked the trial court to refuse to certify a right to appeal “any cause number that relates to Mr. Few” because: 1. he could not appeal a nonfinal case � the 2003 case); and 2. he was out of time to file a notice of appeal in the 2005 case. Few attributed his mistake to confusion, because the indictment number was changed so late in the process. The trial court also declared that the carry-over motion dated Oct. 11, 2005, carried over only the materials pending in the 2003 file before or on the date of the carry-over order. At the end of hearing the trial court stated that Few could not appeal and did not order the preparation of a transcript for appeal. But the court found the Few was indigent for the purpose of receiving a free transcript. The 8th Court of Appeals also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the case because Few mistakenly wrote the wrong cause number on his notice of appeal. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. For judges, defendants and prosecutors, the CCA stated, “to err is human, but to repair is now possible.” Amended in relevant part in 2002, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2 prevents trivial, repairable mistakes or defects from divesting appellate courts of the jurisdiction to consider the merits of both state and defense appeals in criminal cases. Defective notices of appeal may now be amended at any time before the appealing party’s brief is filed. Rule 25.2(b), the court noted, states: “In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by timely filing a sufficient notice of appeal.” In addition, Rule 25.2(c)(2) states: “Notice is sufficient if it shows the party’s desire to appeal from the judgment or other appealable order[.]” Finally, the court noted, Rule 25.2(f) permits “ amending the notice.” Thus, the court found the rules retain the requirement of notice of appeal, but they now permit amendment to cure any defects in notices of appeal. The court held that Few’s notice of appeal in this case was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the 8th Court of Appeals. The CCA further concluded that the 8th Court of appeals erred in dismissing Few’s appeal without first giving him a reasonable opportunity to correct the defect in his notice of appeal. OPINION:Cochran, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court.

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.