Delarosa, Jose Ramiro
PD-1406-14
| Tex. | Feb 17, 2015Background
- Delarosa was charged with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and convicted by a jury; sentenced to 18 months in state jail and a $1,000 fine.
- The Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction without addressing abatement to determine trial court intent.
- There were conflicting appellate-record indicia (certification of appeal, appointment to represent on appeal, motion for new trial, and unclear interlineation) about whether a new trial was granted or if remedies should be pursued on appeal.
- The State sought abatement per Taylor v. State to clarify trial court intent and to determine jurisdiction, citing liberal correction of records under Tex. R. App. P. 44.4 and 47.1.
- This Court granted discretionary review but previously denied oral-argument; Delarosa filed a dismissal motion alleging a plea bargain, supported by a December 17, 2014 judgment.
- The State argued that timely petition for discretionary review vested this Court with exclusive jurisdiction and trial court actions after that filing could not divest this Court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Fifth Court erred by dismissing for lack of jurisdiction without abating to ascertain trial court intent | Delarosa's case resembles Taylor; abatement should clarify intent and preserve jurisdiction | Delarosa argues dismissal was proper and jurisdiction could be divested by lower court actions | Fifth Court erred; abatement needed to determine trial court intent and preserve jurisdiction |
| Whether timely petition for discretionary review vested exclusive jurisdiction in this Court and could not be divested by the trial court | Garza and related authority establish exclusive jurisdiction in this Court once petition filed | Delarosa's dismissal motion and December 17, 2014 judgment suggest potential jurisdictional divestment by trial court | This Court holds timely petition vested exclusive jurisdiction; lower courts cannot divest this Court of that jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 247 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (abuse of appellate-record ambiguities require abatement to determine trial court intent)
- Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (timely petition vests appellate jurisdiction in this Court)
- Ex Parte Shaw, 395 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (preserves this Court’s jurisdiction when petition is timely filed)
- Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (fostering judicial economy; liberal interpretation of rules to correct records)
- State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (trial court cannot reclaim jurisdiction once rules bar further action)