Texas Criminal Trial Court of Record Deadlines

The clock starts running for an appeal of a Texas state criminal trial court judgment when the judgment is signed.  Usually its the defendant who appeals. If the defendant does not file a motion for new trial or a motion in arrest of judgment,a notice of appeal must be filed thirty days or less after judgment in the trial court. (Motions in arrest of judgment are very rare nowadays, because by statute, rule or precedent, all errors that I am aware of that would justify arresting a judgment either have to be objected to before judgment or would be open to correction by a motion for new trial or a writ of habeas corpus.). If a motion for new trial is filed, it must be presented to the trial court ten days or less after it is filed, unless the trial court gives permission for it to be presented sometime 75 days or less after the judgment is signed. If a motion requires a hearing, as it would if it were based on jury misconduct about which evidence would have to be taken, that hearing must take place 75 days or less after the judgment is signed. The notice of appeal may be filed 90 days after judgment if a motion for new trial, etc. was filed 30 days or less after the judgment was signed.
The State has 20 days to appeal if it wants to appeal a judgment no matter what else gets filed.
A docketing statement should be filed in the Court of Appeals when the notice of appeal is filed. Also, if the defendant be indigent, the defendant should file a motion for a free record and an affidavit of indigence.
The clerk's record is usually prepared relatively quickly, often a couple of weeks. Preparation of the reporter's record is usually a very time-consuming part of the appellate process, often taking months. The appellant's brief is due 30 days or less after the reporter's record is ready.

Inconsistent Testimony, Recantations Don't Require New Trial

In Duke v. State, No. 06-10-00209-CR (Tex. App.--Texarkana, Mar. 27, 2012) (no pet. h.) the first time that the child told the school counselor that her stepfather touched her genitals, she said that it had happened during horseplay and wrestling. The counselor said that the child's statement exculpated the stepfather. An investigator who interviewed the counselor said that the counselor had inculpated the stepfather. The next month the child told her father that she had been molested. She later told the investigator that the stepfather had penetrated her anus with his penis, but stated after that that he had only touched her buttocks with his penis through her clothing. After that, she recanted to her mother. Further on in time, there was a trial. The child testified that the stepfather had put his penis in her anus. She also stated that the penis was not hard. The stepfather is convicted of indecency by contact and gets a 60-year sentence. After the trial, the child moved back in with her mother, and recanted in a motion for new trial. Around that time, she told the investigator that she had been telling the truth at the trial. Should a new trial be granted?
A motion for new trial based on a recantation must satisfy the following four-part test for newly discovered evidence:
(1) the newly discovered evidence was unknown or unavailable to the movant at the time of his trial;
(2) the movant's failure to discover or obtain the evidence was not due to a lack of diligence;
(3) the new evidence is admissible and is not merely cumulative, corroborative, collateral, or impeaching; and,
(4) the new evidence is probably true and will probably bring about a different result on another trial.
The decision is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
The trial judge ruled that the new evidence was not probably true, that the child seemed resigned in her testimony at the motion for new trial, and the appeals court would not second-guess the trial judge.

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.