State v. Aaron Lagunas ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •       TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-02-00059-CR
    State of Texas, Appellant
    v.
    Aaron Lagunas, Appellee
    FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COMAL COUNTY
    NO. 2001CR1734, HONORABLE BRENDA CHAPMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING
    The State seeks to appeal an order by the county court at law granting appellee Aaron
    Lagunas’s motion to suppress evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (West
    Supp. 2002). We will dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with article 44.01.
    The elected prosecuting attorney—not an assistant—must personally supervise and
    authorize appeals pursuant to article 44.01. State v. Muller, 
    829 S.W.2d 805
    , 810 (Tex. Crim. App.
    1992). To comply with the statute, the elected prosecuting attorney must either physically sign the
    notice of appeal or personally instruct and authorize a subordinate to do so. 
    Id. The notice
    of appeal
    in this cause was signed by the assistant criminal district attorney. The statement in the notice of
    appeal that the State is acting “by and through its Criminal District Attorney of Comal County” is not
    adequate to fulfill the statutory requirement. 
    Id. at 811.
    In an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress, the elected prosecuting
    attorney must also certify that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence
    in question is of substantial importance to the State. Art. 44.01(a)(5). In this cause, the certification
    is signed by the assistant criminal district attorney and therefore does not satisfy this additional
    statutory requirement. 
    Muller, 829 S.W.2d at 809
    ; State v. Brown, 
    843 S.W.2d 267
    , 268 (Tex.
    App.—Austin 1992, no pet.).
    The State did not properly perfect its appeal within the fifteen days in which it is
    allowed to “make an appeal.” Art. 44.01(d); see 
    Muller, 829 S.W.2d at 812
    ; State v. Demaret, 
    764 S.W.2d 857
    , 858 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, no pet.). This defect cannot be cured by later
    amendment. State v. Riewe, 
    13 S.W.3d 408
    , 412-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Accordingly, the
    appeal is dismissed.
    Bea Ann Smith, Justice
    Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel
    Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
    Filed: April 11, 2002
    Do Not Publish
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-02-00059-CR

Filed Date: 4/11/2002

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/6/2015