Counting Days in the State Appellate Courts of the Lone Star State

In Texas state appellate law, you calculate deadlines by counting the first day after a triggering event happens up until the last day of a period that is not a holiday, a Saturday or a Sunday. For example, the deadline to file a notice of appeal of a final criminal trial court judgment signed Wednesday, January 2, 2019, in which no motion for new trial nor motion in arrest of judgment was filed would be Friday, February 1, 2019. The time to file an appeal in such a case would be 30 days. The first day of the thirty would be Thursday, January 3, 2019, and the 30th day would be Friday, February 1, 2019. Barring a technical efiling problem, the notice would be late on or after midnight Saturday, February 2, 2019.

Let's try the hypothetical again, only this time let's have the judgment be signed Thursday, January 3. The first day to count would be Friday, January 4 and the 30th day would now be Saturday, February 2, 2019. Since the 30th day is now a Saturday, the period does not end but would go on to the next day which would be Sunday, February 3, 2019, which does not end the period and the deadline is moved yet one more day to Monday, February 4, 2019. Again, barring a technical efiling problem, the notice would be late on or after midnight Tuesday, February 5, 2019.

For a third time, the judgment is signed in Montgomery County on Thursday, January 17, 2019. The first day is Friday, January 19, 2019. The 30th day is Saturday, February 16, 2019- no good. The next day Sunday the 17th is no better. In this case, though, Monday the 18th is President's Day, a holiday in Jefferson County where the appropriate court of appeals sits, Beaumont's Ninth Court of Appeals. So it is no good either and the last day for filing the notice of appeal is Tuesday, February 19, 2019. Efiling willing, the notice would be late Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at or after midnight. Texas state appeals courts are pretty good about announcing their holidays. If the appellate court has not indicated on its web page whether or not a day is a holiday a good practical rule is that courts of appeals follow the holidays of the county in which they usually sit, and the highest state courts follow the state government holiday schedule. Parties with their backs against the wall may try to get, say, a state holiday counted when an appeals court was open. I shudder to think what would happen if the holidays of Nueces County, one home of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, did not match with the holidays of Hidalgo County, the other home of the Thirteenth. Those are the nightmares of appellate nerds.

In Texas, Sometimes the Cops Can Hunt You Down with Your Cell Phone without a Warrant.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a unanimous opinion written by Judge Barbara Hervey held that evidence suppression is not a remedy for a violation of the federal Stored Communications Act or Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 18.21 notwithstanding Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.23, and, additionally, that no warrant is required to access a limited amount of real-time cell-site information from a defendant's wireless carrier.
Christian Vernon Sims, pictured above courtesy of The Paris News, was a suspect in his grandmother's murder. The grandmother's credit card had been used 80 miles north of the crime scene. A sheriff's deputy who was the investigating officer in the shooting returned to his office to seek a warrant for the cell phone information. It was a Thursday; it was before the close of business hours. A sheriff's deputy requested that Sims's phone be pinged without a warrant on an emergency basis. That deputy reported that 20 minutes passed before he got real-time information as to where Sims's phone was. The sheriff's office figured out what road Sims was taking, and local police forces along that road narrowed down where he was to a motel where he was arrested without incident. He moved to have the phone information suppressed, which the trial court denied, and he ended up pleading to a 35-year sentence, but with the right to carry the motion to suppress up on appeal. The Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana affirmed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals granted a petition for discretionary review.
The federal Stored Communications Act provides that its civil remedies are the only sanctions for a nonconstitutional violation of it. Neither the COA opinion nor the CCA opinion note that under Article Six, paragraph two of the United States Constitution, federal law trumps any state law at all-- even a state's constitution. So suppression on the basis of the Stored Communications Act was always a nonstarter.
The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that Article 18.21 was made law after Article 38.23 and, so, supersedes it. Article 18.21 has been moved to chapter 18B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This case was, of course, under the old law.
Though the United States Supreme Court case of Carpenter v. United States found that Carpenter's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the United States by its looking at 12,898 location points cataloging Carpenter’s movements over 127 days—an average of 101 data points per day without a warrant based on probable cause. It said its ruling had nothing to do real-time information as in Sims's case and opines that exigent circumstances might arise in the case of a fleeing suspect as here. The CCA held, therefore, that Sims's case was not on all fours with Carpenter.
This case was wrongly decided. There was not any exigency excusing the lack of a warrant. The suspect was already at least 80 miles away. He was 16 years old and had killed his grandmother-- no reason to think that he was a great danger to others. He was driving in a car and was going to have to sleep. The record is clear that law enforcement could have a gotten a warrant. The court just did not want to rule in favor of a granny-killer.
To be fair to my friends in law enforcement, any prudent Texas agency is going to implement procedures to get a warrant in situations like this. It is a best practice and keeps the appellate prosecutors from having to go one or more extra rounds in a future case. 

Appealing from Some of Texas's Lowest Trial Courts- Justice Courts

The number of justices of the peace in the 254 counties of Texas varies greatly. 134-souled Loving County has only one. Justices of the Peace need not be attorneys. The largest county, Harris County, with county seat Houston, has eight justice of the peace precincts with two justices for each precinct. The Texas Constitution grants justice courts original jurisdiction of the trial of fine-only criminal offenses and exclusive jurisdiction of civil matters in which the amount in controversy is less than $200 and whatever other jurisdiction is additionally granted by law.

The highest elected official in any Texas county is the county judge. Early in Texas history, a county judge was a person of all work who presided over the work of a commissioners' court of four elected officials-- commissioners-- each of whom was responsible for a quarter of the county's land area. The judge and the commissioners managed the county's finances together, and additionally, a county judge presided over a county trial court ruling on misdemeanors, small civil matters, and probate matters. Now County Judges in large counties do not hold that latter court, but delegate that work to one or more county-courts-at-law created by the legislature. Additionally, large counties have dedicated probate courts, created by the legislature.   Whether or not a county judge holds a law court, such a judge, like a justice of the peace, need not be an attorney. County-court-at-law and probate judges do have to be attorneys as district court judges must.

"Bob, this is all fascinating, but what does it have to do with appellate law?" With a few exceptions-- always read the statute creating the court you are appearing in-- the rule about appealing judgments in these courts is that you have a right to a de novo trial in a court presided over by a lawyer judge. Usually, you go from a justice court to a county-court-at-law. You post a bond a day or less after the justice court proceeding and you get a de novo trial-- a trial "of newness"-- a do-over, the only disadvantage that the loser of the first trial bears is that the appeal bond will pay off the winner below if the bond filer loses. In civil matters, the judgment of the trial de novo can often be appealed to a court of appeals like any other civil case heard by the county-court-at-law. In a criminal matter, only federal or state constitutional matters may be taken up to a court of appeals.

In Plea Bargaining Down to a Lesser Included Offense, Does a Defendant Waive Absolutely All Possible Punishment Error of Any Kind?

A Texas state prosecutor charges a defendant with specific crimes which have certain punishments associated with them. The most common type of plea bargaining is for the State to try to get the defendant to agree to the most punishment possible and for the defendant to try to get the State to agree to the least punishment possible. When the two parties agree as to such a matter and they can get the judge to approve it, then the defendant is stuck with having pleaded guilty and that State is stuck with a particular minimum punishment, and neither side can appeal.
But, as Texas Ninth Court of Appeals Justice Leanne Johnson writes for a panel including Chief Justice Steve McKeithen and Justice Hollis Horton, there is another type of plea bargaining which can be done along with or instead of the other type, which is plea bargaining about which crime should be charged.  Roberto Ishmael Alvarado was charged with capital murder but reached a plea bargain agreement with the Liberty County District Attorney's Office to only be charged with the lesser-included offense of murder. At that time in the process, the trial judge ruled that Alvarado did not have a right to appeal. This makes sense; the part of the process that determined what crime, if any, Alvarado had committed had been determined by an ordinarily unappealable plea bargain. Texas criminal cases have two parts, though, (1) guilt-innocence and (2) punishment. The State and Alvarado did not agree as to what the punishment should be, and the State allowed Alvarado to go to trial under the lesser-included offense only. The Liberty trial jury popped Alvarado hard-- a 60-year sentence plus a $10,000 fine. The trial judge noted in the sentencing paperwork that the sentence was not entered into pursuant to a plea bargain-- Alvarado had gone to trial so that he, Alvarado, had a right to appeal his punishment. The Nines said here that the trial judge was wrong as to the punishment. Alvarado's plea bargain as to the charge had the effect, they said of limiting his punishment so that the punishment determination had also been reached pursuant to a plea bargain, so that Alvarado, in fact, had no right to appeal.
When a defendant pleads guilty to an offense as part of a plea bargain, that defendant cannot appeal that the defendant is not guilty of that offense, and bears the risk of being mistaken as to culpability for that particular offense. When a defendant agrees to accept a particular punishment, a defendant bears the risk that the prosecutor or the trial judge might make a reversible error in the punishment phase of his or her trial. The prosecutor or the trial judge might have made such a mistake, but the defendant gives up the right to be tried and to find out if reversible error manifests itself.
Even if the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser offense, the State can still prevent the defendant from waiving jury trial as to that lesser offense. Plea bargains are governed in part by the law of contracts. The course of dealing of the parties indicates that the State and the trial judge accepted that the defendant, in trading his right to contest guilt-innocence as to a lesser offense for not having to defend the greater charge, had not agreed to accept maximum punishment as to that lesser offense. There does not appear to be any legal nor policy reason for the court of appeals not to get to the merits of the unbargained-for part of the case. If the Court of Appeals does not think better of this decision on reconsideration, it should be taken up to the Court of Criminal Appeals to see if prosecutors and trial courts don't have the power to make deals like this.

What Can Po' Folk Do about Court Costs and Record Costs on Appeal in Texas State Courts?

Here I'm talking about appeals, not applications for extraordinary writs. Court costs here are filing fees (Some other things are counted by trial courts as court costs, but they generally don't affect the ordinary appeals of poor people.). An appeal is generally decided on the basis of a clerk's record and a reporter's (or recorder's) record. A clerk's record used to be called a transcript in Texas practice and a reporter's record, a statement of facts; you might still hear these terms today, and it helps to know these terms when you're reading old law. A court clerk's job is to keep track of the documents filed, orders entered, and docket entries made in the trial court (These days, they're practically always e-documents.), and, when asked and when paid the fees allowed by law, to prepare an electronic record of them for the use of the parties and the appellate court on appeal. The reporter (practically always using machine shorthand) or recorder (practically always using a special audio recorder) practically always takes down jury selection, opening statements, witness testimony and trial arguments for a record for the appeals court and is also the steward of the trial exhibits.
Indigents, that is, people who cannot afford to pay costs, can ask to be excused from filing fees in trial court and if the trial court agrees that a person was and is indigent at the time rendering civil judgment, those fees will be excused, and if they were excused at trial, unless there is some evidence that the poor person's status has changed, they will be excused from filing fees on appeal. In criminal cases, a defendant can be found indigent at the beginning of the trial proceedings, and, in the absence of new evidence, that finding will hold even through appellate proceedings. Criminal defendants and sexually-violent-predator respondents who are indigent have a right to be represented by lawyers and to get the clerk's record and the reporter's or recorder's record at no expense to them at trial and on initial appeal. Indigent people who may lose their parental rights have a right to appointed counsel and reporter's record on initial appeal.
There are generally not statutes nor rules for appellate indigency record relief for other kinds of prospective appellants in Texas state courts.

Former Longtime Midland City Attorney Keith Stretcher Appointed to Eastland 11th Court of Appeals

Governor Greg Abbott appointed former longtime Midland City Attorney Keith Stretcher to Eastland Texas's Eleventh Court of Appeals yesterday, filling the vacancy created when the governor elevated Justice John M. Bailey to Chief Justice last September.

Stretcher likely got visibility in Austin by having been a President of the Texas City Attorneys Association.

Bailey was the Chief-Justice-designate after getting the Republican nomination last March-- no one ran against him-- and thereby becoming the last candidate standing for the post. Bailey replaced retiring Chief Justice Jim Wright.

Stretcher joins the Eagle-Scout, former-collegiate-gymnast, decorated-military-veteran, award-winning scholar Associate Justice Mike Willson as the second Midlander on the three-justice court. The Eleventh Supreme Judicial District covers 28 counties. On the map above it is the beige one directly under the panhandle. The Eleventh Court of Appeals sits in the tiny town of Eastland in tiny Eastland County very close to the east end of the SJD. Eastland is a remote exurb of Abilene, which is the county seat of Taylor County, the third-largest county of the SJD. The largest county of the SJD is Ector County which is in the southwestern corner, county seat: Odessa. The second-largest is Midland County, county seat: Midland. These two counties, along with Martin County, form the Midland-Odessa metropolitan area, which has the damnably cute slogan "Two Cities, no Limits," and which is in turn where the Permian Basin geological formation is. Midland-Odessa is where the votes are, so it is from where most of the justices come. Chief Justice Bailey lives in Cisco, near Eastland.

Still, why Midland instead of Odessa? The reason likely goes back to when the oil was discovered. The Ector County Commissioners built roads to the oilfields, which made it a more convenient place for roughnecks-- that's the name of a kind of worker-- while Midland had an office building and a hotel. To this day, Midland is comparatively more white-collar than Odessa.

Appeal from metro Abilene or metro Midland-Odessa or the deserts in between and you'll be before three old white Republican guys . . .

Habeas Corpus in Federal District Court

What do you have to do to get to apply for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal district court for a wrongful conviction? I'm going to be outlining the answer here instead of going into precise detail because a detailed answer would turn this blog post into a law review article or even a book. The answer is different depending on whether or not the wrongful conviction that you are seeking relief from is a state or federal conviction. If it is a federal conviction, you must exhaust your rights to appeal, and apply for your writ before a year of time has passed consisting of all the days that the conviction was final. This one-year period comes from the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. If it is a state court wrongful conviction you have to exhaust your state appeals, if any, and your state applications for a writ of habeas corpus, again before there have been 365 days of judgment-finality. The 28th volume of the United States Code chapter 153 has the federal habeas corpus statutes, and there are, additionally, special rules for these proceedings, which can be downloaded here.
As compared to the vast majority of state courts, federal courts are preferable for applicants because federal judges serve for life on good behavior and have other protections for their independence, where state court judges by virtue of their limited terms are creatures of politics. In many places, including Texas, they must seek their benches as partisan political candidates. It is far more common for a judge to lose a bench by being too even-handed between the State and the defense than to lose their benches by being too hard on crime-- making them favorable to the prosecution. A federal judge who angers the electorate keeps the bench and the pay for life.

Asking a Question Does Not Make You Agree to an Adverse Answer.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Phil Johnson

Mr. Ali wants to buy a business from Mr. Musallam. They negotiate and they make an appointment to finish the deal. When the time comes Musallam does not want to sell. Ali sues. Musallam says that he owes nothing because they had not finished reaching an agreement. The case is tried to a jury. Musallam requests a charge question as to whether or not the two men had a deal. The jury finds for Ali. After the verdict, Musallam makes two complaints to the trial court:

1. that the jury finding was immaterial, and
2. that the jury finding was supported by insufficient evidence.

Immaterial, what does that mean? It means that there are many reasons that one person might be legally bound to owe money to another person. The money might be owed for some other reason than that there was a breach of contract-- detrimental reliance for one.

In Fort Worth's State Court of Appeals, Justice Lee Gabriel wrote an opinion for a panel including now former Chief Justice Terri Livingston and Justice Mark T. Pittman, denying Musallam relief because he could not complain that a jury question that he asked for was not material and for which there was insufficient evidence. Musallam petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review the case. They agreed, and Supreme Court Justice Phil Johnson wrote for a unanimous SCOTX that Musallam had not waived his alleged error and that the case should be remanded to Fort Worth to be considered on the merits. The Supremes said that if someone seeks a jury question, it does not follow that one is agreeing to be bound by any answer that may be made to that question and that one is not vouching for the sufficiency of the evidence in favor of an adverse ruling.

Texas Supreme Court Justices are not created equal, but Phil Johnson, whose resignation took effect yesterday appeared to me to be one of the good ones. He appeared to call balls and strikes and not to have any dark nor ignorant agenda. I include video from his last oral argument, which choked me up. So long, Justice Johnson. Thank you for all your public service.

https://pbvideo.vids.io/videos/d49ddebc1710ecc15c/justice-phil-johnson-retires-from-the-supreme-court-of-texas