Yates v. State, 05-87-01238-CR
| Decision Date | 04 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-87-01238-CR,05-87-01238-CR |
| Citation | 759 S.W.2d 949 |
| Parties | James Stephen YATES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Brenda G. Christia, Karen R. Wise, Dallas, for appellant.
Before HOWELL, STEWART and ROWE, JJ.
James Stephen Yates was convicted in a bench trial, pursuant to his plea of nolo contendere, of the misdemeanor offense of unlawfully carrying a weapon. Punishment was assessed at thirty days' confinement probated for six months, and a $100 fine. Appellant raises one point of error, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search. The State argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider appellant's point. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that we have jurisdiction, and we overrule appellant's point. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
At the outset, the State questions whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere; as a result, the State argues, the notice of appeal must state either that the trial court granted permission to appeal, or must specify that the matters now raised were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial. The State argues that since the notice does not contain the required language, appellant has failed to properly perfect his appeal.
Rule 40(b)(1) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure governs the means by which an appellant must perfect a criminal appeal. In pertinent part, the rule reads as follows:
[I]f the judgment was rendered on his plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to Article 1.15, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant and his attorney, in order to prosecute an appeal for a nonjurisdictional defect or error that occurred prior to entry of the plea the notice shall state that the trial court granted permission to appeal or shall specify that those matters were raised by written motion and ruled on before trial.
(emphasis added). Article 1.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifies some of the prerequisites for conviction in felony cases. Appellant was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, a misdemeanor. Thus, the proviso of rule 40(b)(1) has no application to this case, and appellant's notice of appeal is sufficient to vest this Court with jurisdiction.
Turning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemmons v. State
...cases]," the rule subjected only pleas in felony cases to the particularized "extra notice" requirement. See Yates v. State, 759 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988), no PDR history. That such "notice" is pretermitted in misdemeanor cases means the customary written notice of appeal is suffic......
-
Salazar v. State, A14-87-979-CR
...with jurisdiction to review his appeal from denial of his motion to suppress. Our sister court reached a similar conclusion in Yates v. State, 759 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, no pet. reported). Janie Uriste was standing outside her mother's club on Telephone Road in Houston on the ev......
-
Lynch v. State
...from misdemeanor convictions in the absence of a plea bargain, making the Helms rule inapplicable to misdemeanor appeals. In Yates v. State, 759 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, no pet.), the Fifth Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether it had "jurisdiction" to hear an appeal ......
-
Wilson v. State, B14-90-440-CR
...to review his appeal from denial of his motion to suppress. Our sister court reached a similar conclusion in Yates v. State, 759 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988), no Yates, supra, reached the same conclusion regarding the portion of Rule 40(b)(1). In answering the same contention that the......