State of Texas v. Zermeno, Jose Guadalupe, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1535

Two cases, Redus and Zermeno, were consolidated; trial court suppressed blood evidence obtained without a warrant.
State filed notices of appeal under Article 44.01(a)(5) claiming the appeals were not for delay and the evidence was of substantial importance.
The elected district attorney signed the notices but did not certify the required facts in the certification itself; the notices quoted the statute instead.
Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the certification was not adequately made and the State failed to meet Article 44.01(a)(5) requirements.
The State sought discretionary review; issue centered on whether the certification requirement is hypertechnical and whether quoting the statute suffices.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held the certification is jurisdictional and cannot be satisfied by merely quoting the statute; the State’s notices failed to certify.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the certification under Art. 44.01(a)(5) jurisdictional?	State argues certification is procedural and not strictly jurisdictional.	Redus/Zermeno argue certification is jurisdictional and must be a personal, direct assertion by the elected prosecutor.	Certification is jurisdictional; mere quotation does not suffice.
Does quoting the statute in a notice of appeal satisfy certification?	State contends that quoting the statute shows the required intent and substantiates certification.	Redus/Zermeno contend that quoting a statute fails to vouch for delay or substantial importance as required.	Quoting the statute does not satisfy the certification requirements.
Did the State's notices comply with two factual certifications: not for delay and substantial importance?	State maintains implied vouching through quotation demonstrates these facts.	Court requires an actual written assertion by the prosecutor that the appeal is not for delay and that the evidence is substantially important.	The notices failed to certify; the appeals were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

State v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (Art. 44.01(a)(5) requires elected prosecutor certification)
State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (certification is jurisdictional; failure to comply deprives court of jurisdiction)
State v. Furley, 890 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994) (statutory certification requires written assertion that appeal is not for delay and evidence is of substantial importance)
State v. Chupik, 343 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (once certified, reviewing court cannot examine substantiation of substantiality)
Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (the certification must assert substantiality of the evidence and non-delay)
Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (context on governmental right to appeal and pre-approval of interlocutory rulings)
United States v. Carrillo-Bernal, 58 F.3d 1490 (10th Cir. 1995) (certification ensures conscientious pre-appeal analysis by government)
United States v. Salisbury, 158 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 1998) (negligence in certification cannot excuse noncompliance; certification is binding)
United States v. Moskowitz, 702 F.3d 731 (2d Cir. 2012) (certification is not a mere formality; must reflect substantive review)
United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) (certification guarantees prosecutorial evaluation before appeal)