Morris, Michael Joseph

4/9/26

PD-1034-25

“Did the court of appeals incorrectly dismiss Petitioner’s appeal for want of jurisdiction, when Petitioner attempted to timely file his new trial motion on July 11, 2025, which was rejected by the county clerk’s office because of a formatting error when a deputy clerk misinterpreted the e-filing rules, causing this motion to be file-marked with an untimely date, instead of the timely earlier attempted filing date?”

Morris attempted to file a timely new trial motion, but because the filing included two lead documents (the motion and a proposed order), the clerk directed him to resubmit them separately.   The resubmitted motion was file-dated after the expiration of the new trial motion deadline.  Had the motion not been rejected, it would have extended the time to file a notice of appeal to 90 days.  When Morris filed his notice of appeal, he explained the situation with his new trial motion and asked the court of appeals to permit the late filing because it was filed (with an extension motion) within 15 days of the date it would have been due had the clerk not rejected his new trial motion.

The court of appeals concluded that both the new trial motion and notice of appeal were untimely and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, advising Morris that he could seek habeas relief to file an out-of-time appeal.

Morris argues that the Statewide Rules Governing Electronic Filing in Criminal Cases do not prohibit filing a proposed order with a motion. He further contends that Rule 2.6 specifically requires a clerk to give a person a reasonable amount of time (not to exceed 72 hours) to refile nonconforming documents.  He points to Texas Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0476, which stated that refiled documents in criminal cases should be treated as though they were timely filed.   Finally, in the civil context, he observes that the El Paso Court of Appeals has treated such documents as timely filed.  Whitelock v. Stewart, 661 S.W.3d 583, 594 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2023, pet. denied); Nevarez Law Firm, P.C. v. Inv. Land Servs., L.L.C., 610 S.W.3d 567, 570-71 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020) (op. on reh’g).