Delarosa, Jose Ramiro
PD-1406-14
| Tex. App. | Mar 11, 2015Background
- Defendant Jose Ramiro Delarosa was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; jury assessed 18 months in state jail and a $1,000 fine.
- Trial court certified defendant’s right to appeal (July 9, 2014); defendant filed a notice of appeal (Aug. 1, 2014) and a motion for new trial (Aug. 6, 2014).
- The Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on Oct. 2, 2014; the State timely filed a petition for discretionary review (PDR) to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (filed Oct. 16, 2014), which the CCA granted on Jan. 28, 2015.
- After the State’s PDR was filed and while it remained pending, the trial court signed a document dated Dec. 17, 2014 purporting to grant a new trial; the State contends that the record is ambiguous as to whether a new trial had previously been granted in August.
- The State argues the December 17, 2014 trial-court action occurred while the CCA’s jurisdiction had been invoked by the timely-filed PDR, so the trial-court judgment was void ab initio and the Fifth Court erred by dismissing without abatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Delarosa) | Held / Relief Sought |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a timely PDR vests the CCA with exclusive jurisdiction, divesting the trial court | Timely PDR vests exclusive jurisdiction in the CCA; lower courts lose power to dispose of the case while PDR is pending (Garza, Olivo) | Trial court retained jurisdiction or the purported December 17 order cured defects; dismissal appropriate due to plea/bargain issues | State urges CCA to hold PDR vests exclusive jurisdiction and trial-court December 17 action was void |
| Whether the trial court’s Dec. 17, 2014 judgment (granting new trial) is void because entered while PDR pending | The Dec. 17 judgment was entered after State invoked CCA jurisdiction and thus is void ab initio; Fifth Court should have abated to clarify, not dismissed | Decarosa relies on the December 17 judgment to support dismissal / plea-bargain resolution | State asks CCA to find Dec. 17 judgment void and reverse Fifth Court dismissal for failing to abate |
| Whether the Fifth Court erred by dismissing the appeal instead of abating to clarify the trial-court record | Fifth Court should have used abatement (per Taylor) to have trial court clarify whether new trial was granted on Aug. 6 | Fifth Court found lack of jurisdiction and dismissed | State seeks reversal or vacatur and remand for abatement to resolve record ambiguity |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (timely filing of PDR vests CCA with jurisdiction to review court-of-appeals judgment)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (after PDR filed, exclusive jurisdiction rests with CCA; intermediate courts lose authority to modify opinion)
- Ex parte Shaw, 395 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (PDR pendency can deprive an intermediate court of power to withdraw or alter its opinion)
- State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant new trial after appellate deadlines had passed)
- State v. Adams, 930 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (discussing when trial court may reclaim jurisdiction after appellate rules pass control)
- Homan v. Hughes, 708 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (once appeal perfected, trial judge cannot issue orders divesting appellate courts of jurisdiction)
- Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trial-court jurisdiction includes power to render particular kinds of judgments; lack of jurisdiction renders those acts void)