Wachtendorf, John Allen Jr., PD-0280-15

Defendant Wachtendorf moved to suppress blood-test results, arguing the warrantless draw violated Missouri v. McNeely.
Trial court held hearings, announced on the record that it would grant the suppression, and the State stated it would appeal.
On the same day the judge signed a written order granting the motion, but the clerk did not file-mark the order immediately; the clerk later filed it after the 20-day appellate deadline had passed.
The State filed its notice of appeal 85 days after the judge signed the order and a few days after the clerk filed the previously signed order.
The Third Court of Appeals dismissed the State's appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.01(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wachtendorf)	Held
When does the State’s 20‑day appeal clock under Art. 44.01(d) begin to run?	The State: Starting point should be when the State has notice of a signed, filed order (not merely the judge’s signature).	Wachtendorf: It begins when the trial judge signs the order.	Held: The clock begins when the trial judge signs the order.
Does an oral ruling start the appellate deadline?	The State: Oral ruling without filed written order creates unfairness if State has no notice.	Wachtendorf: Oral rulings are not “orders”; only a signed written order triggers the clock.	Held: Oral rulings do not constitute an appealable order; a signed written order is required.
Is the State excused for failing to learn of an unsigned/unfiled signed order?	The State: Lack of actual notice of the signed order makes strict application unfair.	Wachtendorf: State had constructive means to verify (e.g., call the court) and was not diligent.	Held: Lack of notice is not an exception; precedent requires starting the clock on the judge’s signature.
Was the State’s appeal timely?	The State: Appeal should be allowed because it lacked notice of the order until after filing deadline.	Wachtendorf: Notice was untimely; dismissal appropriate.	Held: Appeal untimely; dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (warrant requirement analysis for nonconsensual blood draws)
State v. Rosenbaum, 818 S.W.2d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Art. 44.01(d) appellate timetable begins when trial judge signs order)
Sutton v. Bage, 822 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (reaffirming that "entered by the court" means judge's signing)
State v. Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (order must be in writing and signed to be appealable)
Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)