Jurisdictional Anomalies of Texas's Courts of Appeals

There are fourteen intermediate courts of appeals in Texas. The areas they cover are called supreme judicial districts. I've previously discussed the strangeness of the First and Fourteenth Supreme Judicial Districts, which cover the same counties and whose work is divided between them generally by the Harris County District Clerk's office.
Hunt County, Texas is in both the Fifth and Sixth Supreme Judicial Districts. This means that you can appeal from there to either Dallas--Fifth S.J.D.-- or Texarkana-- Sixth.
Gregg, Rusk, Upshur and Wood Counties are Texas counties that are in both the Sixth and Twelfth Supreme Judicial Districts. The latter is in Tyler, the former, Texarkana.
Appeals of denials of the rights of property owners to drill oil and gas wells by the Railroad Commission, as well as other actions involving the government of the State of Texas are almost solely limited to the district courts of Travis County- county seat, Austin. Further appeals from there go to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, unless the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court equalizes the dockets of the state courts of appeals. This makes the Third Court of Appeals in some ways, a first among equals of the Courts of Appeals.

Tips from the Austin Appellate Bench for You

Third Court of Appeals Justice Jim Moseley gives you tips for persuasive briefs here.

Possible Error in Allowing Testimony of Pretrial Services Held Harmless

In a kidnapping trial, the State called a pretrial services officer, a county employee who interviews criminal defendants to determine whether they should get a personal- free- bail bond to testify about what a defendant had told her about his alleged affirmative defense. The defendant had not been Mirandized. The Austin Court of Appeals analyzed the pretrial services officer's role, appearing to be heading toward the conclusion that since the defendant was in custody, was being interrogated after a fashion, he should have been Mirandized if his statements could have been used against him later. The court did not reach a conclusion one way or another because they found that even if the statements should not have come in, the error would have been harmless, given the rest of evidence properly admitted.
The Court also considered that the improper objection to a voir dire question was harmless, because all of the panelists impacted were struck, that the refusal of the court to strike a panelist for cause was proper, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the kidnapping victim was not released in a safe place.

New Justices Coming to Austin's Third Court of Appeals.

The changes that are coming to Austin's Third Court of Appeals are here.

The Main Real Lesson of Rouse v. State

A defendant pleads guilty without a plea bargain(an "open plea"). The crime: shoplifting that turned into a robbery. (The law used to be that if a shoplifter grabbed or pushed someone while leaving the store, that would be a misdemeanor theft, now it's a felony robbery.). The defendant used to have a good job, and has fallen into crime by becoming addicted to drugs. The defendant has priors. The lawyer was hired, not appointed.
The defendant is shocked to get prison time, real prison time, not probation or the substance-abuse punishment facility. " . . . I was misled," said the prisoner. The trial judge says, "I don't believe that's true."
Defense lawyer faxes the trial court coordinator a paper titled "Notice of Appeal" 31 days after sentencing,apparently stating that counsel had told the defendant that the plea could be withdrawn if the judge's sentence were harsher than the defendant would like and complaining- accurately- that the judge had been impermissably involved in plea bargaining. The appeal notice is not followed up. More than three-and-a-half years later, the defendant seeks, and gets, an out-of-time appeal. The opinion of the Austin Court of Appeals is assigned to retired presiding judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals John F. Onion, Jr., who reverses the trial court and remands the case to it.
Now this case can be said to be about the importance of filing a motion for new trial timely, having whatever evidence is necessary for it to be presented to the trial court . It is not, though. The trial court stated in the record that it did not believe the defendant's claim of having been misled. The trial judge had considered the defense argument, and disagreed. This trial judge was no prosecution whore. The trial judge was elected out of Austin and contributed to MoveOn.org back in the day
The trial judge really made a judgment about the situation at the beginning, knowing the circumstances and observing demeanor of the witness before him. Every appellate judge is, by comparison, a paper-shuffling latecomer to the situation.
If the motion for new trial had been OK, the Court of Criminal Appeals would likely have found some other reason to reverse.