Lisa Tuian Jefferson v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00372-CR
LISA TUIAN JEFFERSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 413th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-F201800364
ORDER
This appeal was dismissed on December 19, 2018 because we determined, with the
information we had available, that appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely. Although
the motion for rehearing that was filed was untimely, it directed our attention to a pro se
letter filed in the days after the trial court’s judgment. Before our plenary power expired,
we vacated our December 19, 2018 judgment and withdrew our opinion of the same date
so that we could determine whether appellant’s pro se letter constituted a notice of appeal
that was timely filed. We asked the State to file a response which addressed the issue of
whether appellant’s letter, filed by the district clerk on October 1, 2018, was sufficient as
a notice of appeal to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. In its response, the State reviewed
the various cases in which a pro se document has been held to be a sufficient notice of
appeal to invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction and concluded the letter in this
proceeding was inadequate. We disagree.
A person's right to appeal a civil or criminal judgment should not depend upon
traipsing through a maze of technicalities. Harkcom v. State, 484 S.W.3d 432, 434 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2016). We do not require "magic words" or a separate instrument to constitute
notice of appeal. Id. All that is required is that the notice be in writing, be submitted
within thirty days or ninety days after sentencing, as appropriate, and show the party's
desire to appeal from the judgment or other appealable order. Id. See also TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2(c)(2).
In this instance, within 14 days from the date of the trial court’s judgment,
appellant wrote a letter which was filed by the district clerk’s office. In the first sentence,
appellant stated, “I, Lisa Jefferson, have wrote a statement as to why I feel the jury’s
judgement [sic] should be overturned.” Construing the Rules of Appellate Procedure
liberally, as we should, see Harkcom, 484 S.W.3d at 434, leads us to conclude that
appellant’s letter was a timely and sufficient notice of appeal to invoke our jurisdiction.
Even if it is not a sufficient notice of appeal, we conclude the letter is a sufficient,
and timely, motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.1(a). See also Harkcom, 484 S.W.3d
at 434 (appellate rules to be liberally construed). And if there was a timely motion for
new trial, then counsel’s notice of appeal filed on December 4, 2018, which we had
Jefferson v. State Page 2
previously determined was untimely, would be timely and would invoke our
jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2).
Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated. The Clerk’s and Reporter’s Records and
appellant’s docketing statement are due 30 days from the date of this order. The normal
appellate timetables for the filing of briefs will begin when the complete appellate record
is filed.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
(Justice Davis dissenting without opinion)
Appeal reinstated
Order issued and filed February 27, 2019
Publish
Jefferson v. State Page 3