August 03, 2009, 17:35
mllFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Is anyone aware of an actual deadline for requesting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law? Scenario: Defense's Motion to Suppress was denied after a hearing in January 2009. Trial by jury took place at the end of June, beginning of July. Guilty verdict on July 1, 2009. Sentenced on July 15, 2009. Defendant requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on July 22, 2009 from his suppression motion heard in January.
August 04, 2009, 00:00
AlexLaymanOK first let me say I'm not a lawyer so you shouldn't believe anything I have to say about the law.
The converse of this issue where the State was appealing an adverse ruling on a Motion to Suppress was addressed in
State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex.Crim.App.,2006) If you look down at the next to last paragraph right before the conclusion:
We look to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297 to provide guidance
to the trial courts about the time to file requested
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The rule states that
"The court shall file its findings of fact and conclusions of
law within twenty days after a timely request is filed. The
court shall cause a copy of its findings and conclusions to be
mailed to each party in the suit." Thus, while the appealing
party must file its notice of appeal in accordance with the
applicable statutes and rules, the trial court has 20 days from
the date of its ruling in which to file findings of fact if it
has not already made oral findings on the record.
So now Rule 297 gives you 10 days from the signing of the final judgment to make a timely request for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. So I guess this would be July 25 in your example and so a request on July 22 was timely.
BUT if you read that quote above again you see they are taking "guidance" from Rule 297 not adopting it outright. The court writes that they are using the
date of the ruling, not the date of the final judgment. If this means the ruling on the Motion to Suppress then a request on July 22 is NOT timely, not even close.