# Jackson v. TEXAS BD. OF PARDONS AND PAROLES

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · July 28, 2005 · 178 S.W.3d 272

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9662062

## Case

- **Full name:** Donald C. JACKSON, Appellant, v. TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** July 28, 2005
- **Citations:** 178 S.W.3d 272; 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5894; 2005 WL 1774971
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Taft
- **Judges:** Evelyn v. Keyes
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9662062

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that appellant is not required to comply with section 14.004(a)(1) to appeal
- holding procedural requirements of section 14.004 inapplicable to appellate filings

## Opinion text

TIM TAFT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion in all but its implication that rule 20.1(c)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allows a party to file his affidavit of indi-gency on the same day as his notice of appeal in order to satisfy the requirement of the rule that the affidavit of indigency be filed “with or before” the notice of appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 20.1(c)(1). Nevertheless, because our records demonstrate that appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this Court at 9:41 a.m. on August 18, 2003 and that appellant’s affidavit of indigency was filed in the trial court at 9:42 a.m. on August 18, 2003, I would hold that this was sufficiently close in time to constitute the documents’ having been filed “with” one another, even though they were filed in different courts.
Accordingly, I respectfully concur in the majority’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9662062. Public record. Not legal advice.