Harkcom, Patricia Elizabeth, PD-0180-15

Appellant Patricia Harkcom was convicted of possessing <1 gram of methamphetamine; jury sentenced her to 24 months (state‑jail felony).
Sentence was pronounced October 2, 2012; written judgment was signed and filed October 31, 2012.
On October 31 (the day the written judgment was filed and one day before the 30‑day appeal deadline), appellant — acting pro se and incarcerated — filed a form application for appointment of counsel and a pauper’s declaration; the trial judge handwrote “APPEAL/ON APPEAL” on the order and appointed counsel.
Counsel was notified November 1 and filed a notice of appeal and an untimely motion for new trial on November 8; the court of appeals questioned jurisdiction because no timely notice of appeal or extension motion was filed within the rule 26.2/26.3 deadlines.
The Second Court of Appeals (majority) dismissed for want of jurisdiction, holding the pauper’s oath/appointment form did not show a desire to appeal; a dissent argued the facts (judgment entered one day before deadline and trial court’s “APPEAL” notation) showed a timely invocation of appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a post‑judgment application for appointment of counsel can serve as a timely notice of appeal	Harkcom: her pro se pauper’s application filed the day the written judgment was entered manifested a bona fide desire to appeal and thus perfected the appeal under Few; trial court’s “APPEAL” notation confirms it	State: the application merely sought counsel and did not expressly show a desire to appeal; precedent treats pauper’s oaths/appointment requests as insufficient	Majority: Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction — application did not constitute a timely notice of appeal; appellant failed to file a timely notice or motion for extension
Whether courts should liberally construe appellate‑perfection rules to excuse form defects	Harkcom: Few requires a liberal, substance‑over‑form approach to recognize bona fide attempts to invoke appellate jurisdiction	State: Liberal construction does not eliminate the requirement of a bona fide notice of appeal; courts must still enforce timing rules	Majority: Acknowledged liberal construction but declined to dispense with the notice requirement; liberal construction did not save this filing

Few v. State, 230 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (advocates liberal, substance‑over‑form construction for perfection of appeal)
Jones v. State, 98 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (distinguishes pauper’s oath/request from a written notice of appeal; granted out‑of‑time appeal)
Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (timely notice of appeal requirement is jurisdictional; dismissal required when not met)
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (court of appeals must dismiss where no timely notice of appeal or proper extension motion is filed)
Gonzales v. State, 421 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (a notice that shows desire to appeal is sufficient even if filed under imperfect circumstances)