in Re Cliff Carpenter ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-19-00109-CV
IN RE CLIFF CARPENTER
On Appeal from the 123rd District Court
Panola County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-C-0027
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cliff Carpenter has attempted to perfect an appeal from an order entered by the presiding
judge of the Tenth Administrative Judicial Region. Because the order is not appealable, we dismiss
Carpenter’s attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Carpenter was appointed by the 123rd Judicial District Court of Panola County as an
investigator to assist in the preparation of the defense of Tammy Crawford, who had been indicted
for the state-jail-felony offense of credit card or debit card abuse. 1 Carpenter submitted invoices
for payment for his services totaling $53,072.00 and sought payment for that total fee. Following
a hearing, the trial court entered an order on August 20, 2018, requiring the auditor of Panola
County to pay Carpenter the sum of $2,500.00 for his services and expenses in relation to cause
number 2015-C-0027, styled The State of Texas v. Tammy Crawford. Unsatisfied with the trial
court’s order, Carpenter filed a notice of appeal with the judge of the Tenth Administrative Judicial
Region. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(c) (Supp.). On January 7, 2019, the presiding
judge of the Tenth Administrative Judicial Region entered an order denying Carpenter’s request
for additional investigative fees. Carpenter now attempts to appeal from that order.
Our jurisdiction, as an appellate court, is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX.
CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (Supp.). Unless we are given specific
authority over an appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over appeals
from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “An appeal
of an order issued by the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region pursuant to Code of
1
The order of appointment authorized Carpenter to receive not more than $2,500.00 for his services.
2
Criminal Procedure Article 26.05(c) is not authorized by statute.” In re Long, No. 13-10-00612-
CV, 2011 WL 1204756, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 31, 2011, no pet.) (per curiam)
(mem. op.). Consequently, it appears that we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
By letter dated January 27, 2020, we informed Carpenter of this potential defect in our
jurisdiction and afforded him the opportunity to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of
the appeal. While Carpenter filed a response, he failed to identify any authority to contradict the
conclusion that we are without jurisdiction over this appeal. Moreover, Section 26.05(c) of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorize an appeal from an order issued by the
presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. That section provides, in pertinent part:
An attorney whose request for payment is disapproved or is not otherwise acted on
by the 60th day after the date the request for payment is submitted may appeal the
disapproval or failure to act by filing a motion with the presiding judge of the
administrative judicial region. On the filing of a motion, the presiding judge of the
administrative judicial region shall review the disapproval of payment or failure to
act and determine the appropriate amount of payment. In reviewing the disapproval
or failure to act, the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region may
conduct a hearing. Not later than the 45th day after the date an application for
payment of a fee is submitted under this article, the commissioners court shall pay
to the appointed counsel the amount that is approved by the presiding judge of the
administrative judicial region and that is in accordance with the fee schedule for
that county.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.05(c). Although a fee-payment claim may be appealed to
the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region, the statute plainly requires the
commissioners court to “pay the appointed counsel the amount that is approved by the presiding
judge of the administrative judicial region and that is in accordance with the fee schedule for that
3
county.” This section does not contemplate a further right of appeal from the order of the presiding
judge of the administrative judicial region. 2
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: February 12, 2020
Date Decided: February 13, 2020
2
Even if such an order were properly appealable, the notice of appeal filed in this case was untimely. The presiding
judge of the administrative judicial region signed the fee payment order on January 7, 2019. Carpenter’s notice of
appeal was filed on December 16, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days
after judgment is signed). A timely notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. In re A.L.B., 56
S.W.3d 651, 652 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.). If the notice is untimely, then we can take no action other than
to dismiss the appeal. Id.4