Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The trial court granted Natalie Faith Trujillo’s motion to suppress evidence on February 12, 2026. The State timely filed a notice of appeal on March 2, 2026, but the notice did not contain the certification required by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.01(a)(5): that the appeal was not taken for delay and that the suppressed evidence was substantially important to the case.
After the court of appeals questioned its jurisdiction, the State initially moved to dismiss its appeal. It later withdrew that motion and argued that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent decision in State v. Lambert had abrogated State v. Redus, which treats the statutory certification as a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be added after the filing deadline. The court reinstated the appeal and requested briefing on that issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that Lambert did not abrogate Redus. Lambert involved an appeal from an order granting a new trial, which is governed by a different subsection of Article 44.01 and does not require the certification mandated for State appeals from suppression orders. Lambert also did not mention or overrule Redus.
The court further reasoned that the Texas Legislature amended Article 44.01 in 2025 without changing the certification language previously construed in Redus, supporting the presumption that the Legislature intended that construction to continue. Because the State failed to file the required certification within twenty days after the suppression order, the defect could not be corrected by a later amendment, and the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A State notice of appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress must timely include the certification required by Article 44.01(a)(5).
- The certification is jurisdictional under State v. Redus and cannot be supplied through an untimely amendment.
- State v. Lambert permits correction of certain notice defects but does not eliminate the statutory certification requirement for suppression appeals.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that prosecutors must satisfy every statutory prerequisite when appealing a suppression ruling. Even a timely notice of appeal will not invoke appellate jurisdiction if it omits the Article 44.01(a)(5) certification.
It also limits Lambert’s reach: its flexible treatment of a defective notice involving a new-trial order does not extend to a missing jurisdictional certification expressly required by statute.