James Daniel Blankenship v. State
13-16-00623-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 16, 2016Background
- Appellant James Daniel Blankenship appealed a conviction in cause no. S-16-3257CR to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals.
- The trial-court certification of defendant's right to appeal stated that Blankenship does not have a right to appeal under Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).
- The appellate court noted the appellate rules require a certification showing a right to appeal be part of the record and that appeals must be dismissed when such certification is absent or shows no right.
- The opinion explains the certification requirement’s purpose: to separate appealable from non-appealable cases early (citing Greenwell and Hargesheimer).
- The Court ordered lead appellate counsel, Joel H. Thomas, within 30 days to review the record, determine whether Blankenship has a right to appeal, and send a letter with findings or any amended certification.
- If counsel concludes Blankenship has a right to appeal, counsel must file a motion within 30 days explaining substantive reasons (with legal analysis, true factual allegations supported by the record, and supporting record documents attached).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial-court certification shows a right to appeal | Blankenship (via counsel) may argue grounds exist to treat the certification as incorrect or subject to amendment | State relies on the certification stating no right to appeal, which ordinarily requires dismissal | Court ordered counsel to investigate and either produce amended certification or file a motion explaining why a right to appeal exists; appeal not summarily dismissed yet |
| What procedural steps counsel must take if asserting a right to appeal | Counsel must identify substantive grounds and provide legal analysis and record support | State would require strict compliance with rule and case law showing motion and attachments must be supported by the record | Court required counsel to file a motion with analysis, true factual allegations, and copies of record documents if asserting a right to appeal (citing Dears and Woods) |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial District, 159 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining purpose of certification requirement to separate appealable from non-appealable cases)
- Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing certification and appellate procedure)
- Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (requiring motions asserting right to appeal include legal analysis and record-supported factual allegations)
- Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (noting recitations in notices or certifications must be true and supported by the record)
- Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (illustrating that the certification form may be modified to reflect a right of appeal in circumstances not addressed by the form)