James Dean Parker v. State of Texas
Opinion
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-01-033-CR
JAMES DEAN PARKER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 21st District Court
Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court # 12,124
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Dean Parker pleaded guilty to possession of less than one gram of methampetamine without the benefit of a plea recommendation from the State. The court sentenced him to eighteen months’ confinement in a state jail facility. As a part of the plea proceedings, Parker and his trial counsel signed a written waiver of appeal. Because Parker waived his right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Clayburn v. State, 985 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (per curiam).
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed April 24, 2002
Do not publish
[CR25]
, I respectfully dissent.
The Court has decided we have no jurisdiction over the issues raised by Gray and Emich. The aspect of these appeals that has caused me to dissent is, having no jurisdiction over any issue for review, do we dismiss the appeal or do we affirm the judgment? In our research, we have found a substantial lack of uniformity. There is authority for each. In 1992, the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the issue in two cases, coming to different conclusions. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). I have found no Court of Criminal Appeals case since then which discusses this issue. And the cases cited by the majority do not directly address the issue as did Phynes and Olowosuko.
The intermediate appellate courts are split on this question. The San Antonio and Austin courts affirm the judgment, thus following Olowosuko. Davis v. State, No. 03-96-00638-CR, 1997 Tex. App. Lexis 5275 (Austin, October 9, 1997, no pet.)(not designated for publication); Elizondo v. State, 861 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993, no pet.). The First Court in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Beaumont, El Paso, and Corpus Christi dismiss the appeal if the appellant raises no issue over which they have jurisdiction, thus following Phynes. Sugar v. State, No. 01-03-00671-CR, 2004 Tex. App. Lexis 2124 (Houston [1st Dist.] March 4, 2004, no pet. h.); Woodard v. State, No. 05-95-00070-CR, 1996 Tex. App. Lexis 1182 (Dallas, March 27, 1996, no pet.)(not designated for publication); Kendall v. State, 929 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref’d); Collins v. State, 912 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, no pet.); Eaden v. State, 901 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no pet.); Garza v. State, 839 S.W.2d 131(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.). The reason for the confusion seems to be caused by the apparent inconsistency between Olowosuko and Phynes, having been issued two weeks apart. The only two cases we have found which mention this inconsistency are Woodard, from Dallas, and Davis, from Austin.
In Woodard, Justice Wright noted the Court of Criminal Appeals specifically instructed courts of appeals to dismiss direct appeals in which an appellant raises an issue over which the court has no jurisdiction, specifically the decision to adjudicate guilt under article 42.12, section 5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Woodard, 1996 Tex. App. Lexis 1182, at *3-4. She seems to rely, in part, on the fact that Dallas, El Paso, and Beaumont had all dismissed the appeal in this circumstance. Id. at *4. But Justice Wright also noted the apparent inconsistency of Olowosuko and Phynes and that neither case referenced the other. Id. at *3, n. 1.
The Austin court has also mentioned the discrepancy and chose to follow Olowosuko, noting that it was issued two weeks after Phynes and thus appeared to be the last word from the Court of Criminal Appeals on the subject. Davis, 1997 Tex. App. Lexis 5275, at *6, n. 4. With this portion of Austin’s analysis, I must respectfully disagree. Olowosuko had no motion for rehearing, whereas a motion for rehearing in Phynes was denied on April 15, a month after Olowosuko was issued. Thus, Phynes was the Court’s last word directly on the subject.
My esteemed colleagues miss the apparent differentiation between affirming a trial court judgment as compared to dismissing an appeal. This distinction comes from the very definition of the terms. Affirm is defined as: “To confirm (a judgment) on appeal.” Black’s Law Dictionary 59 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed., West 1999). To confirm means to give formal approval of something. Id. at 294. Whereas dismiss is defined as: “To send (something) away; specif., to terminate (an action or claim) without further hearing, esp. before the trial of the issues involved.” Black’s Law Dictionary at 482. In neither of these appeals have we reviewed any aspect of the judgment. Therefore, we cannot give formal approval of, or affirm, the trial court’s judgment. Indeed, we have determined that although our jurisdiction has been invoked by a notice of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to review any of the issues argued by either appellant. Thus, neither appellant has presented anything we can review, and we must terminate their appeals without review of the issues presented.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
James Dean Parker v. State of Texas (James Dean Parker v. State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.