Cole v. State

755 S.W.2d 226, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1790, 1988 WL 77935
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 28, 1988
DocketNo. 01-88-00391-CR
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 755 S.W.2d 226 (Cole v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cole v. State, 755 S.W.2d 226, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1790, 1988 WL 77935 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Marlin Cole has filed a motion to transfer1 his case to the Tenth Judicial District in Waco. He complains of the action of the district clerk in forwarding the notice of appeal to this Court after he had designated the Tenth Court of Appeals on his notice of appeal filed in the 272nd District Court of Brazos County.

Brazos County stands in the unique position of being the only county in Texas that is included within three appellate districts. The First, Tenth, and Fourteenth District Courts of Appeals all have jurisdiction over appeals from Brazos County. Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. sec. 22.201(b), (k) & (o) (Vernon Pamph.1988).

The Government Code provides for a procedure for random selection of all “civil and criminal cases directed to the First and Fourteenth Court of Appeals.” Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. sec. 22.202(h) (Vernon Pamph. 1988); see also Avis Rent A Car v. Advertising & Policy Comm., 751 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 1988) (motion to transfer). Tex.Gov’t Code section 22.202(h) provides:

The trial clerk shall write the numbers of the two courts of appeals on identical slips of paper and place the slips in a container. When a notice of appeal or appeal bond is filed, the trial court clerk shall draw a number from the container at random, in a public place, and shall assign the case and any companion cases to the court of appeals for the corresponding number drawn.

The Government Code does not expressly address the situation presented in Brazos County.

Appellant argues that his designation of the Tenth District Court of Appeals was binding under Tex.R.App.P. 51(c). Rule 51(c), which pertains to the appellate transcript, states, in part:

Upon perfection of the appeal, the clerk of the trial court shall prepare under his hand and seal of the court and immedi[227]*227ately transmit the transcript to the appellate court designated by the appellant.2

The “designation” language found in rule 51(c) does not empower the appellant to choose his appellate court. Under appellant’s logic, rule 51(c) would give Brazos County appellants, but none other in Texas, the right to “forum shop” by “designating” the appellate court. This is not the intent of rule 51(c), which is concerned with the transmission of the transcript, not the assignment of the appeal.

We find no authority indicating that a Brazos County litigant has a greater right than a litigant from any other Texas county to choose the appellate court that will hear his appeal. Therefore, the motion to transfer is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cook v. McGgraw
25 S.W.3d 790 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Scotka v. State
856 S.W.2d 790 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
755 S.W.2d 226, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 1790, 1988 WL 77935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-state-texapp-1988.