Opinion

State v. Aaron Lagunas

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Filed
Apr 11, 2002
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.0%

The opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00059-CR

State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Aaron Lagunas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 2001CR1734, HONORABLE BRENDA CHAPMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

The State seeks to appeal an order by the county court at law granting appellee Aaron

Lagunas's motion to suppress evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (West

Supp. 2002). We will dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with article 44.01.

The elected prosecuting attorney--not an assistant--must personally supervise and

authorize appeals pursuant to article 44.01. State v. Muller , 829 S.W.2d 805, 810 (Tex. Crim. App.

1992). To comply with the statute, the elected prosecuting attorney must either physically sign the

notice of appeal or personally instruct and authorize a subordinate to do so. Id . The notice of appeal

in this cause was signed by the assistant criminal district attorney. The statement in the notice of

appeal that the State is acting "by and through its Criminal District Attorney of Comal County" is

not adequate to fulfill the statutory requirement. Id . at 811.

In an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress, the elected prosecuting

attorney must also certify that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence

in question is of substantial importance to the State. Art. 44.01(a)(5). In this cause, the certification

is signed by the assistant criminal district attorney and therefore does not satisfy this additional

statutory requirement. Muller , 829 S.W.2d at 809 ; State v. Brown , 843 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Tex.

App.--Austin 1992, no pet.).

The State did not properly perfect its appeal within the fifteen days in which it is

allowed to "make an appeal." Art. 44.01(d); see Muller , 829 S.W.2d at 812 ; State v. Demaret , 764

S.W.2d 857, 858 (Tex. App.--Austin 1989, no pet.). This defect cannot be cured by later

amendment. State v. Riewe , 13 S.W.3d 408, 412-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed.

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 11, 2002

Do Not Publish

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.