Background

• The State sought review from a trial-court suppression order affecting Palmer.
• The initial State notice of appeal was signed by an assistant district attorney, not the elected district attorney.
• An untimely amended notice of appeal was later signed by the district attorney, purportedly authorizing the appeal.
• Palmer moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the court of appeals dismissed the appeal, relying on Muller and related authorities.
• This Court analyzed whether Article 44.01(d) requires the district attorney to personally sign or authorize the specific notice of appeal, and whether post-deadline affidavits can cure defects.
• The Court held that timely authorization by the district attorney existed at the time of filing and reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal, granting discretionary review.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (only prosecuting attorney may make an appeal; authorization must precede filing)
• State v. Boseman, 830 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (retroactive ratification cannot cure missing personal authorization within deadline)
• State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (amendment cannot cure jurisdictional defect after deadline)
• State v. White, 261 S.W.3d 65 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (timeliness of filing; signature requirements; rule 4.1 considerations)
• State v. Blankenship, 146 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (amendment-and-cure provisions do not extend jurisdiction when not properly authorized)
• State v. Colyandro, 233 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (jurisdictional analysis on prosecuting authority and authorization)
• State v. Shelton, 830 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (signature considerations for authorization to appeal)
• State v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (contextual background on procurement of appeals)
• State v. Redus, 445 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (contemporary reaffirmation of certification requirements)