Callis v. State
| Decision Date | 25 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-87-1122-CR,01-87-1122-CR |
| Citation | 756 S.W.2d 826 |
| Parties | Kevin Dale CALLIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kenneth W. Smith, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Dist. Atty., Harris County, John F. Carroll, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before WARREN, DUGGAN and LEVY, JJ.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S OBJECTION TO THE RECORD
On August 20, 1988, we remanded this case to the trial court pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 55 for a hearing and findings concerning whether the record accurately reflects the date on which appellate counsel was appointed. Appellant had filed a sworn objection to the record contending that he was not appointed on December 9, 1987, as reflected by the order in the transcript, and that the true date of his appointment was January 15, 1988. The date of appointment is critical because sentence was imposed on December 9, 1987, and a motion for new trial, if desired, was required to be filed within 30 days of this date. Tex.R.App.P. 31(a)(1). If appellate counsel was not appointed until January 15, more than 30 days after December 9, then appellant has been denied his sixth amendment right to counsel during a critical stage of the prosecution. Trevino v. State, 565 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Appellant requested, in his objection, that this case be abated and remanded to the trial court so that he may file a motion for new trial.
The trial court conducted a hearing, heard testimony, and filed findings of fact in which he concluded that the record does not accurately reflect the date of appellate counsel's appointment and that the appointment date cannot be determined. The transcript also reflects a notation on the docket sheet describing appellant's trial and sentence, and that counsel on appeal was "to be determined." Further, the December 31, 1987 notice of assignment to the First Court of Appeals, also contained in the transcript, shows that appellate counsel was "to be determined." Although appellant's trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on December 9, the notation on the docket sheet shows that the trial court had concluded that trial counsel would have no further involvement in the case.
Additionally, a motion for new trial is a post-trial review proceeding and is not part of the trial itself, id.; therefore, it may be assumed that trial counsel regarded the motion for new trial as part of the appeal, a stage of the proceeding that he was not appointed to prosecute. Moreover, if appellate counsel was not determined until January 15, appellant was effectively denied the right to counsel during the period in which a desired motion for new trial was required to be filed. Any conclusion, based upon the record before us, that appellant was represented at this stage of the proceedings would be sheer speculation.
"In some cases where an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oldham v. State
...Criminal Procedure. The courts of appeals have considered and used Rule 2(b) in a variety of cases. See, e.g., Callis v. State, 756 S.W.2d 826 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (using Rule 2(b) to abate appeal and remand to allow untimely filing of a motion for new trial upon finding the......
-
Murdock v. State
...counsel is not appointed to represent an indigent defendant until after it was too late to timely file a motion for new trial. Callis v. State, 756 S.W.2d 826 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no In the absence of the showing of such an overriding constitutional right, the trial judge act......
-
Rockwall Commons Associates v. Mrc Mortgage Grantor Trust I
... ... denied); Garner, 244 S.W.3d at 860. When a trial court's summary judgment order does not state the specific grounds for its ruling, we must affirm the judgment if any of the theories advanced by Appellee's motion are meritorious. Western ... ...
-
Jack v. State
...(not designated for publication); Burnett v. State, 959 S.W.2d 652, 656 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); Callis v. State, 756 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.), overruled on other grounds, Oldham v. 977 S.W.2d 354 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); cf. Trevino v......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
..., 565 S.W.2d 938, 940 (Tex. Crim.App. 1978); Prudhomme v. State , 28 S.W.3d 114, 119-120 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000); Callis v. State , 756 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988); Massingill v. State , 8 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999); Hanson v. State , 11 S.W.3d 285, 28......
-
Table of cases
...636 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999), §11:123 – C – Cain v. State , 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997), §16:123 Callis v. State , 756 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988), §11:121 Campbell v. State , 5 S.W.3d 693 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999), §§14:90, 14:92 Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
..., 565 S.W.2d 938, 940 (Tex. Crim.App. 1978); Prudhomme v. State , 28 S.W.3d 114, 119-120 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000); Callis v. State , 756 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988); Massingill v. State , 8 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999); Hanson v. State , 11 S.W.3d 285, 28......
-
Error Preservation and Appeal
..., 565 S.W.2d 938, 940 (Tex. Crim.App. 1978); Prudhomme v. State , 28 S.W.3d 114, 119-120 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000); Callis v. State , 756 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988); Massingill v. State , 8 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Tex.App.—Austin 1999); Hanson v. State , 11 S.W.3d 285, 28......