Israel Coronel v. State
05-17-01383-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Israel Coronel was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and received a 50-year prison sentence; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal (Coronel v. State) and PDR was denied.
- Mandate from the Court of Criminal Appeals issued January 27, 2014; judgment was entered March 26, 2012.
- On December 1, 2017 (well beyond the 30-day new-trial deadline), Coronel filed in the Court of Appeals a "Motion for New Trial Punishment Phase Only" and requested appointed counsel.
- Coronel asserted the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.29 and Texas R. App. P. 21.9 to grant a new punishment-phase trial.
- The Court of Appeals held the motion was untimely and filed in the wrong court, and therefore failed to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
- The court also noted it has no role in post-conviction habeas proceedings under art. 11.07, which are for the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to grant a new trial as to punishment under article 44.29 and Rule 21.9 | Coronel argued the appellate court could grant a new-trial limited to punishment | State argued the motion was untimely and filed in the wrong court; jurisdiction lacking | Denied — motion untimely and filed in wrong court; no jurisdiction |
| Whether a motion for new trial filed more than 30 days after sentencing and filed in the court of appeals can invoke jurisdiction | Coronel contended appellate relief was available despite timing/location | State relied on Rule 21’s strict timing and filing requirements in trial court | Held — Rule 21’s deadlines are jurisdictional; strict compliance required |
| Whether the Court of Appeals can entertain an art. 11.07 post-conviction habeas application | Coronel’s filing could be treated as a habeas petition | State maintained courts of appeals lack role in art. 11.07 proceedings | Held — courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over art. 11.07 writs |
| Whether equitable or substantial-compliance doctrines can cure the jurisdictional defect | Coronel implicitly sought relief despite delay | State argued jurisdictional rules cannot be substantially satisfied | Held — jurisdictional statutes/rules must be strictly complied with; no substantial invocation allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Coronel v. State, 416 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (affirming conviction on direct appeal)
- Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (motion-for-new-trial is a statutory remedy; strict compliance required)
- Ex parte Kirby, 626 S.W.2d 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (jurisdiction either attaches or it does not)
- Ex parte Caldwell, 383 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (without jurisdiction, court cannot act)
- In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (courts of appeals have no role in art. 11.07 post-conviction proceedings)