Marquez v. State, 10-90-111-CR
| Decision Date | 13 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-90-111-CR,10-90-111-CR |
| Citation | 795 S.W.2d 346 |
| Parties | Sonny MARQUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State filed a motion to dismiss Sonny Marquez's appeal on August 10, 1990. Marquez was convicted of Burglary and sentenced to ten years in the Texas Department of Corrections on June 13, 1990. Affidavits of Dan Weyenberg and Coy Jones of the McLennan County Sheriff's Office indicate that Marquez escaped from the county jail on June 30, 1990. Law enforcement officers returned Marquez to the jail after they found Marquez on July 16, 1990. Jones and Weyenberg affied that Marquez's return was not voluntary. Notice of appeal was filed on July 10, 1990, and the transcript was filed on August 10, 1990.
Rule 60(b) provides in part:
(b) Criminal Cases. An appeal shall be dismissed on the State's motion, supported by affidavit, showing that appellant has escaped from custody pending the appeal and that to the affiant's knowledge, has not voluntarily returned to lawful custody within the State within ten days after escaping. The appeal shall not be dismissed, or, if dismissed, shall be reinstated, on filing of an affidavit of an officer or other credible person showing that appellant voluntarily returned to lawful custody within the State within ten days after escaping.
TEX.R.APP.P. 60(b) (emphasis added). The source for this rule is former Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.09. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. art. 44.09 (1965) (repealed 1986). At the time Article 44.09 was repealed, it provided for escape "after giving notice of appeal," instead of "pending the appeal" as Rule 60(b) now provides. In Bullock v. State, 709 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Crim.App.1986), the court discussed the applicability of Article 44.09 to a defendant who escapes before the appellate court obtains jurisdiction. The defendant in Bullock was asserting that if a defendant escapes before the record is filed in the reviewing court and he is returned to custody before the record is filed the appeal will not be dismissed. Id. at 670. The court disagreed with the defendant's assertion in Bullock because the defendant's premise was based on Article 44.09 which provided for escape "pending appeal" prior to its amendment in 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bargo v. State
...filed as well. Thus, the appellate process was well underway. Bargo claims that his situation is similar to that in Marquez v. State, 795 S.W.2d 346 (Tex.Ct.App.-Waco 1990), but he is mistaken. In Marquez, the appellate court held that no appeal was pending at the time of Marquez's escape d......
-
Luciano v. State
...of appellate court). 7 See Ortiz v. State, 862 S.W.2d 170, at 172-173 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1993) no PDR; Marquez v. State 795 S.W.2d 346 (Tex.App.--Waco 1990) no PDR. II Escape before (or after) an appeal is pending "does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or contr......
-
Ortiz v. State
...State within ten days after escaping. Second, Rule 60(b) does not apply when a defendant escapes when no appeal is pending. Marquez v. State, 795 S.W.2d 346, 347 (Tex.App.--Waco 1990, no pet.). If the appellant is back in custody when the record reaches the appellate court, the appeal will ......
-
Archie v. State
...not pending at the time he escaped. Relying on the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion in Austell v. State and this Court's opinion in Marquez v. State, Archie contends that since the record had not yet been returned to us from the Court of Criminal Appeals when Archie escaped and returned t......