From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex parte Brew

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio
Aug 20, 1997
954 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. App. 1997)

Summary

addressing the predecessor to Rule 26

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Servin

Opinion

No. 04-97-00464-CR.

August 20, 1997.

Appeal from 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Raymond Angelini, J.

Judge Angelini signed an order denying habeas corpus relief. The Bexar County Criminal Law Magistrate, Andrew W. Carruthers, signed an order granting relief and dismissing the prosecution. For the reasons explained below, the controlling order determines our jurisdiction.

Fernando Ramos, San Antonio, for Appellant.

Steven C. Hilbig, Criminal District Attorney, San Antonio, for Appellee.

Before HARDBERGER, C.J., and RICKHOFF and GREEN, JJ.


OPINION


Appellant, Roderick Brew, appeals the denial of habeas corpus relief. The magistrate originally granted Brew relief and ordered the prosecution dismissed with prejudice on March 14, 1997. On March 31st, however, the trial court signed an order denying habeas corpus relief and rescinding the dismissal order. According to Brew, he did not file his notice of appeal until June 19th because he did not receive notice of the trial court's March 31st order until after the expiration of the thirty-day time limit for perfection of this appeal. See TEX.R.APP. P. 41(b)(1); Ex parte Pena, 940 S.W.2d 260, 261 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

Brew argues that the magistrate's March 14th order became final fifteen days before the trial court signed its March 31st order. Whether March 31st is the fifteenth day following March 14th is irrelevant because "[a] magistrate may not enter a ruling on any issue of law or fact if that ruling could result in dismissal or require dismissal of a pending criminal prosecution." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 54.908(b) (Vernon Supp. 1997) (regarding criminal law magistrates in Bexar County); see also id. § 54.878(b) (Lubbock County); § 54.978 (Travis County). Thus, the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to enter its March 14th order, and the trial court's March 31st order is the proper appealable order. Because Brew's appeal was untimely perfected, we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988).


Summaries of

Ex parte Brew

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio
Aug 20, 1997
954 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. App. 1997)

addressing the predecessor to Rule 26

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Servin
Case details for

Ex parte Brew

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte Roderick BREW

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio

Date published: Aug 20, 1997

Citations

954 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. App. 1997)

Citing Cases

Ex Parte Servin

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). The requirements of Rule 26 apply even when an…

Ex parte Sinclair

However, the Legislature deleted this subsection in 2001 after a court of appeals interpreted this provision…