Hanson, Crispen , 555 S.W.3d 578 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF TEXAS
    NO. PD-0948-17
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    v.
    CRISPEN HANSON, Appellee
    ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
    FROM THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS
    EL PASO COUNTY
    H ERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which K EASLER, A LCALA,
    R ICHARDSON, Y EARY, N EWELL, K EEL, and W ALKER, JJ., joined. K ELLER, P.J.,
    concurred.
    OPINION
    A trial court entered two orders granting shock probation. The orders were
    identical except that the second order was styled an“Amended Order,” it contained
    additional findings of fact, and it was signed at a later time. Both orders suspended further
    implementation of Appellee’s (Crispen Hanson) prison sentence and placed him on
    probation. The State appealed from the second order, and the court of appeals dismissed
    Hanson–2
    the appeal for want of jurisdiction, concluding that only the first order granting shock
    probation was appealable. The issue is whether the court of appeals erred when it decided
    that the second order was not an appealable order. Because we conclude that it is an
    appealable order under Article 44.01(a)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we reverse
    the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause for the court of appeals to
    consider the merits of the State’s appeal.
    FACTS
    The trial court signed an order on June 15, 2015 granting shock probation. When
    the trial court signed the order, it also signed an amended judgment and imposed
    conditions of probation. On June 25, 2015, the trial court signed an “Amended Order.”
    There were slight variations in the order. The style was different, additional findings of
    fact1 were added, and it was signed on June 25, 2015. Both orders suspended execution of
    Hanson’s prison sentence and placed him on probation. The State filed a notice of appeal
    from the amended order2 on July 13, 2015, eighteen days after the trial court signed the
    order.
    1
    The additional findings of fact include that (1) the trial court accounted for Hanson’s
    general compliance with his bond conditions; (2) the trial court asserted that Hanson’s previous
    release was due to medical reasons; (3) the trial court reasoned that Hanson had produced
    evidence that he “maintains a good relationship with his children and is in compliance with all
    legal support obligations” and that further incarceration would not only hinder Hanson’s efforts
    to seek additional medical testing for himself and his children, but would also create an undue
    hardship on Hanson, his children, and his parents; and (5) the trial court concluded that Hanson
    would not benefit from further incarceration.
    2
    The State did not appeal the trial court’s first order granting shock probation.
    Hanson–3
    THE COURT OF APPEALS
    The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. State v. Hanson,
    No. 08-15-00205-CR, 
    2017 WL 3167484
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso July 26, 2017) (not
    designated for publication). According to the court of appeals, “[w]hile the trial court
    signed an amended order on June 25, 2015 for the ostensible purpose of adding additional
    findings of fact, the amended order did not include any substantive changes to the initial
    order placing Hanson on community supervision for eight years.” 
    Id. at *2.
    Based on this
    and because the trial court contemporaneously signed orders establishing the terms and
    conditions of Hanson’s probation and signed an amended judgment relating only to the
    first order granting shock probation, the court concluded that the “Amended Order” was
    not an appealable order. 
    Id. at *3.
    ARGUMENTS
    Hanson argues that we should adopt the reasoning of the court of appeals. The
    State makes two arguments for reversing the judgment of the court of appeals. It first
    argues that the amended order granting shock probation is appealable based on the plain
    language of Article 44.01 in that the amended order was an (1) “order” 3 and (2) it
    “modifie[d] a judgment.”4 Alternatively, it argues that we should adopt a civil line of
    3
    The State is entitled to appeal an “order” of a court in a criminal cases for specified
    reasons. TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 44.01(a).
    4
    The State can appeal when a trial court signs an order that “modifies a judgment.” TEX .
    CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 44.01(a)(2).
    Hanson–4
    cases, see SLT Dealer Group, Ltd. v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., 
    336 S.W.3d 822
    , 831–32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.), which have held that a
    second order is treated as a modified or reformed judgment that implicitly vacates and
    supersedes the prior judgment, unless the record evinces a contrary intent. Id.; see T EX. R.
    C IV. P. 301, 306a, 329b(e). Here, the State asserts, the record does not show a contrary
    intent, so the “Amended Order” vacated the first and was, thus, appealable. SLT Dealer
    Group, 
    Ltd., 226 S.W.3d at 831
    –32; see City of Westlake Hills v. State ex rel. City of
    Austin, 
    466 S.W.2d 722
    , 726–27 (Tex. 1971).
    ANALYSIS
    We agree with the court of appeals (and Hanson) that the body of law developed
    by civil courts is inapplicable because this case deals with construing a statute, not
    judicial precedent or construction of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Hanson, 
    2017 WL 3167484
    , at *2. However, for the reasons that follow, we ultimately agree with the
    State that the “Amended Order” was an appealable order.
    The court of appeals erred when it decided that the second order did not “modify a
    judgment” under Article 44.01 because there was no substantive difference between the
    orders. It also erred in reaching that conclusion by reasoning that the “Amended Order”
    did not “modify a judgment” because the trial judge did not contemporaneously revise or
    impose conditions of probation or sign a second amended judgment.
    The statute at issue, Article 44.01(a)(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,
    Hanson–5
    states in relevant part that “[t]he [S]tate is entitled to appeal an order of a court in a
    criminal case if the order . . . arrests or modifies a judgment.” T EX. C ODE C RIM. P ROC. art.
    44.01(a)(2). Construing that statute, we have held that the State may appeal an order
    granting shock probation because that order “modifies a judgment” under Article
    44.01(a)(2). State v. Robinson, 
    498 S.W.3d 914
    , 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). An order
    modifying a judgment is “entered by the court” when the trial judge signs the order, State
    v. Rosenbaum, 
    818 S.W.2d 398
    , 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and the State has twenty
    days to file its notice of appeal after an appealable order is “entered by the court.” T EX.
    C ODE C RIM. P ROC. art. 44.01(d); see T EX. R. A PP. P. 26.2(b).
    The issue here is whether the “Amended Order” granting shock probation
    “modifies a judgment” within the meaning of Article 44.01(a)(2). Under these
    circumstances, we conclude that it does. As the court of appeals concedes, there are
    differences between the original order granting shock probation and the second order.
    Those differences are sufficient to conclude that the second order modified a judgment
    within the meaning of Article 44.01(a)(2). We are not confronted with a situation in
    which the amended order is identical to the original order, but for a signature signed at a
    later date or one in which the amended order has no independent legal significance,5 both
    5
    See e.g., State v. Antonelli, No. 958-01, slip op. at 1 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 11, 2002)
    (not designated for publication). In Antonelli, the trial court granted a motion to quash in a signed
    order and later issued an “Amended Order” in which it explained only why it granted the motion
    to quash. 
    Id. at 3.
    We held that the “Amended Order” was not an appealable order because it was
    not actually an order. That is, it ordered nothing, and it could not stand on its own (i.e., it had no
    legal significance independent from the original order granting the motion to quash). 
    Id. at 4.
    We
    Hanson–6
    of which might require a different result. Consequently, under the facts of this case, the
    trial court’s amended order granting shock probation was appealable, and because the
    State filed a timely notice of appeal regarding that order, the court of appeals has
    jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and it erred to conclude otherwise.
    CONCLUSION
    We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause for the
    court of appeals to consider the merits of the State’s appeal.
    Delivered: June 27, 2018
    Publish
    do not cite Antonelli for precedential value, nor should this opinion be construed to adopt the
    Court’s reasoning in that case. We discuss Antonelli for only illustrative purposes.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: NO. PD–0948–17

Citation Numbers: 555 S.W.3d 578

Filed Date: 6/27/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024