State v. Racheal Fowler

Court of Appeals of Texas

State v. Racheal Fowler

DecidedJanuary 8, 2003

Docket10-02-00273-CR

StatusPublished

This text of State v. Racheal Fowler (State v. Racheal Fowler) 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

State v. Racheal Fowler, (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

The State of Texas v. Racheal Fowler

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-02-273-CR

Â Â Â Â Â THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Appellant

Â Â Â Â Â v.

Â Â Â Â Â RACHEAL FOWLER,

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Appellee

From the 1st District Court

Newton County, Texas

Trial Court # 5269-1

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

O P I N I O N

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Racheal Fowler filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the district court contending that her arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause. The court issued the writ and set the matter for hearing. After hearing, the court held that the warrant was not supported by probable cause and ordered Fowler discharged and released from her surety bond. The State appealed.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Generally, the State cannot appeal an adverse ruling in a habeas proceeding. State ex rel. Holmes v. Klevenhagen, 819 S.W.2d 539, 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). The State may appeal an adverse habeas ruling if a statute provides for such an appeal. E.g., State v. Young, 810 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (habeas orders effectively setting aside indictments); State v. Kanapa, 778 S.W.2d 592, 593 (Tex. App.âHouston [1st Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (habeas order modifying judgment).

Â Â Â Â Â Â The State may bring an interlocutory appeal from an adverse probable cause determination only when that decision is made in an order granting a motion to suppress evidence. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2003). No other statute provides a basis for this appeal.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Accordingly, we dismiss the Stateâs appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Â

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â REX D. DAVIS

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Â Â Â Â Â Â Justice Vance, and

Â Â Â Â Â Â Justice Gray

Â Â Â Â Â Â (Justice Gray concurring)

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed January 8, 2003

Publish

[CR25]

o-fareast-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA'>

Very few documents have been filed or received at this point in this appeal.Â From what we have, I have been able to piece together the following time-line:

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â DateÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Description

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 10/29/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Docket entry of hearing

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11/02/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Motion for New Trial

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11/02/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Motion to Reinstate

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11/08/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Notice of Appeal

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 11/09/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Judgment signed

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 12/23/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Motion Extension of Time to File Brief

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (12/17/04)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (mailed above motion)

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 02/07/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â AppellantÂs Brief filed

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 02/07/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â AppellantÂs Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 02/07/04Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Declaration of Inability to Pay Cost

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The motion for new trial and the notice of appeal both appear to be prematurely filed as they were filed prior to the signing of the judgment.Â Tex. R. App. P. 12.1 and 12.2.Â But there can be no question the notice of appeal was timely for the purpose of invoking our jurisdiction.Â Tex. R. App. P. 27.1.

Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â But the CourtÂs holding overrules the procedure we followed in In the Interest of K.K., L.M., M.M., and T.K., 10-04-00303-CV (letter order) that allowed a late filed indigence affidavit after the receipt of a reasonable explanation and reset the timetable to contest that affidavit.Â I am very reluctant to overrule a procedure so recently established.Â

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