The reason for the new rule is plain, see this from Judge Womack's opinion in Owens, 206 S.W.3d at 678: "Not a decision day passes without this court's granting habeas corpus relief, in the form of out-of-time appeals or petitions for discretionary review, to convicted defendants whose counsel failed to carry out the responsibilities that the Court gave them in Axel and Wilson. We should, and we can, have a better method of informing defendants of their rights and duties in the appellate process."

So, now that we are closer to the deadline, anyone else willing to weigh in, or are we all content with the Rolater form?

The "Rolater form." Is this to be my legacy?

Until you start playing the banjo...

You can find it in the appendix to their order, available here:

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/rules/trap-final_order-06-105.pdf

Does anyone have an opinion as to how the defendant receives a copy? The question our judges have asked is do they have to make a copy of the one actually signed, should they have the everyone sign two copies, or can they give an unsigned copy to defendant? The problem with making copies on plea days they would have to either hold defendants until all pleas finished and make copies or have someone run into make a copy after each and every plea. One problem with signing two would be human error or alterations. Of course an unsigned copy does not seem to be a viable alternative either? How are others handling this?

We use a three page tear-apart form (similar to a reset agreement). The clerk gets the original and the defense attorney and defendant each get a copy.

That's what we do, too.

Just so everyone will be clear, I presume the form spoken of by Ken and John and Shannon refers to that required by Rule 25.2(d) and not 25.2(h).

My judge has raised the interesting question: is the advice not required where (as in the typical plea bargained case) there is no right of appeal? If that is true, then the new statement by the defendant at the bottom of the Certification would seem to conflict with the facts. I know in some jurisdictions, this issue does not arise because the certification is not even being used in those situations (since the need for a certification only arises if an appellate record comes into existence) and can be added after the fact.

For the moment I have quit using the Advice form where there is no right of appeal, as it gets very confusing when a waiver of appeal is also being tendered to the court and seems to be just one more waste of time and paper. But, arguably, that is not the proper course given how the Certification form is worded. Any thoughts? Or maybe the statements in the Certification form qualify as the Advice, so no separate advice form is needed?

Another question: do your certification forms include the asterisk and what is essentially a footnote, or was that intended for the benefit of someone other than the defendant?

Yes, the appellate warning conflicts with the waiver of appeal. But, the rule failed to draw a distinction. I also think it is too much to expect judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys to weed out which one is which. So, just have the defendant sign the warning. The worst that happens is that he leaves the room slightly confused about whether he can appeal. So what? He has no right to appeal and waived his appeal.

Yes, the warning is a very clumsy way to solve the problem created by defense lawyers who fail to represent their clients. This is what happens when someone else (the CCA) assumes the role of defense attorney.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pkdyer:
Does anyone have an opinion as to how the defendant receives a copy? The question our judges have asked is do they have to make a copy of the one actually signed, should they have the everyone sign two copies, or can they give an unsigned copy to defendant?

---

We are adjusting our plea packet so that there will be an extra copy for the defendant that can be torn out and handed to him. It will have the right box checked, but otherwise note that the court's copy is signed by Judge, defendant, and defense lawyer.