State v. Sanavongxay
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9595
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- State appeals the trial court's alleged suppression/exclusion of DNA evidence based on late production in discovery.
- Trial judge declined to issue a written order and treated the matter as admissibility due to late discovery, while not memorializing a suppression ruling.
- The State pursued an interlocutory appeal and mandamus; we denied the mandamus in a summary disposition.
- The trial judge admitted markings on the motion were made, but no written order was signed reflecting a final ruling.
- This court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction under Cox, holding a written order is required for interlocutory review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may appeal a pretrial ruling without a signed written order | State contends Medrano allows appeal of admissibility ruling regardless of title. | Trial court's unsigned, nonfinal notation cannot support an appeal; lack of written order defeats jurisdiction. | Appeal must be dismissed for lack of a signed written order |
| Whether the ruling on DNA evidence despite late production qualifies for interlocutory review under article 44.01 | DNA evidence exclusion is a meaningful legal ruling qualifying under Art. 44.01(a)(5). | No final order; issue remains preliminary and nonfinal. | If a written order were signed reflecting a final admissibility ruling, the State may appeal under Art. 44.01(a)(5) |
| Whether Medrano governs the State's ability to appeal a suppression/exclusion ruling regardless of the case’s specific label | Labeling as 'continuance' or 'suppression' is irrelevant; Medrano permits appeal of exclusionary rulings. | Medrano requires a proper procedural vehicle; here the procedural defect prevents appeal. | Yes, Medrano supports appeal of admissibility rulings; procedural defect remains unless a written order is signed |
| Whether the State can obtain a reconsideration from the trial court during the appeal | Trial court should reconsider after briefing; mandamus should not be sole path. | Trial court cannot reconsider while appellate proceedings are pending. | Reconsideration is unavailable until the appeal is resolved; mandamus may be required to obtain relief |
| What remedy governs if the trial court refuses to sign a written order memorializing its ruling | Mandamus ensures the State can proceed with an interlocutory appeal. | Without a written order, jurisdiction is defeated and appeal must be dismissed. | Mandamus may be the remedy to enable appeal under Cox and Medrano |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cox, 235 S.W.3d 283 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007) (mandamus/sufficient written order required for interlocutory appeal)
- Medrano, 67 S.W.3d 892 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (drives interpretation of Art. 44.01 regarding admissibility rulings)
- Kibler, 874 S.W.2d 330 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994) (no pet; procedure for interlocutory appeals)
- LaRue, 152 S.W.3d 95 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (state's ability to appeal from DNA evidence suppression under discovery context)
- King, Ex parte, 134 S.W.3d 500 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004) (suppression rulings viewed as nonfinal; may be reconsidered)