From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russell v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Jan 3, 2001
33 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. 10-00-152-CR

Order delivered and filed January 3, 2001

Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 7, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court # MA99-40287-H

Opinion withdrawn, Appeal reinstated, Motion to Amend denied

Stephen F. Fink, Bryan P. Neal, Thompson Knight, L.L.P., Dallas, for appellant.

Bill Hill, Dallas County Criminal Dist. Atty., Patricia Poppoff Noble, Dallas County Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.

Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.


ORDER


Michael Thomas Russell filed a Motion for Rehearing urging this Court to reconsider our opinion dismissing his appeal for want of jurisdiction. Russell contends that the extra notice requirements of Rule 25.2(b)(3) of the Rules of Appellate procedure apply only to appeals from plea bargained felony convictions. Russell pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense.

The State responds that our reliance on State v. Riewe was correct when we dismissed Russell's appeal even though he pled to a misdemeanor offense because Riewe also involved a misdemeanor offense. See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). It is unclear whether the defendant in Riewe had pled to a misdemeanor offense. The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals only recites that the defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated. Driving while intoxicated can be either a misdemeanor or a felony offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001).

Nevertheless, we have already held that the extra notice requirements apply only to felony plea bargained appeals. Taylor v. State, 916 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, pet. ref'd) (interpreting former Rule 40(b)(1)). We remain convinced that our holding in Taylor is correct and, unless the Court of Criminal Appeals holds otherwise, we will continue to adhere to it.

Therefore, Russell's Motion for Rehearing is granted. Our opinion and judgment dated November 8, 2000, are withdrawn, and the appeal is reinstated. Russell's Motion to Amend Notice of Appeal is denied as unnecessary.


Summaries of

Russell v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Jan 3, 2001
33 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App. 2001)
Case details for

Russell v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL THOMAS RUSSELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco

Date published: Jan 3, 2001

Citations

33 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Lenox v. State

Lenox contends that because he was convicted of a misdemeanor, Rule 25.2(b)(3) does not apply to him. He…

Sipple v. State

The authority to allow amendment of an otherwise timely notice of appeal would necessarily be included within…