Second Court of Appeals

Week of September 29, 2014 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of September 29, 2014

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

Harkcom v. State, No.  02-12-00576-CR (Oct. 2, 2014) (Livingston, C.J., joined by Meier, J.; Walker, J., dissents with opinion).

Held: Appellant’s posttrial application for appointment of counsel did not qualify as a notice of appeal. Because appellant did not timely file a notice of appeal or a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, the appeal must be dismissed.
Dissent: Based on the unique facts here, where the written judgment was entered one day prior to the thirty-day deadline to appeal, where Appellant filed her application for appointed counsel that same day, and where the trial court twice indicated on that application that her request and the court’s order was for “APPEAL,” and liberally construing the perfection-of-appeals rules, Appellant’s application for appointment of counsel sufficiently showed her desire to appeal from the trial court’s judgment.


Mandel v. Lewisville ISD, Nos. 02-13-00171-CV 02-13-00412-CV (Oct. 2, 2014) (Gardner, J., joined by Livingston, C.J., and Gabriel, J.).

Held: Appellants have not shown error on the face of the record in this restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment in a suit to collect delinquent ad valorem taxes because (1) former rule of civil procedure 107’s requirement that the return of service “state when the citation was served” does not require a statement of the hour and minute of service and is satisfied by stating the date of service; (2) rule 117a(4) provides that only one citation need be issued and served and that any taxing entity having a tax claim against the property may intervene and have its tax claim determined without the necessity of further citation or notice to any parties to the suit; (3) service under rule 21a satisfies the requirement of service of an amended petition asserting a new cause of action as well as one that seeks more onerous relief; and (4)   the record does not demonstrate that Appellants were not served with the order of sale and notice of sale.