Direct Appeals vs. Collateral Appeals: What’s the Difference?
When a person is convicted of a crime, the legal system provides two primary ways to challenge the conviction: direct appeals and collateral appeals. These processes serve different purposes, follow distinct legal standards, and have unique procedural requirements. While both Texas and Arkansas allow defendants to seek post-conviction relief through these methods, the laws governing them differ in significant ways. Understanding the differences between direct and collateral appeals can help defendants and their attorneys determine the best legal strategy for challenging a conviction.
A direct appeal is the first legal challenge a defendant can file after a conviction. It is a formal request for an appellate court to review the trial court’s proceedings to determine whether any legal errors occurred that may have affected the outcome. Unlike a retrial, a direct appeal does not introduce new evidence or testimony. Instead, it is based on the trial record, transcripts, and legal arguments presented in appellate briefs. The appellate court reviews issues such as erroneous jury instructions, improper admission or exclusion of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, or ineffective assistance of counsel. If the court finds a legal error, it may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the case for a new trial.
In Texas, a defendant must file a Notice of Appeal within 30 days of sentencing, but if a motion for a new trial is filed, the deadline extends to 90 days (Tex. R. App. P. 26.2). Felony appeals are first heard by the Texas Court of Appeals, and further review can be sought in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Tex. Gov't Code § 22.201).
In Arkansas, the Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of sentencing (Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a)(1)). Appeals are initially reviewed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, unless the case involves a death sentence or significant constitutional issues, in which case it goes directly to the Arkansas Supreme Court (Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2). A direct appeal is appropriate when a defendant believes the trial court made a legal mistake that affected the verdict, allowed improper evidence, or engaged in misconduct.
A collateral appeal, also known as post-conviction relief, is a separate legal process that challenges a conviction outside the normal appellate process. Unlike direct appeals, collateral appeals allow defendants to raise new claims, such as evidence of actual innocence or constitutional violations. Collateral appeals are generally pursued after all direct appeals have been exhausted. They differ significantly from direct appeals in that they allow for the introduction of new evidence, such as DNA testing, witness recantations, or newly discovered prosecutorial misconduct. The primary focus of collateral appeals is on constitutional violations, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violations, or wrongful convictions. However, collateral relief is limited in scope and granted only when a fundamental constitutional error is proven.
In Texas, the most common form of collateral appeal is a writ of habeas corpus, which allows a defendant to challenge a conviction based on constitutional violations. Texas law governing habeas petitions for felonies is found in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07, which requires petitions to be filed in the trial court before being reviewed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In Arkansas, collateral relief is sought through a Rule 37 petition (Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1), which allows convicted individuals to challenge their trial based on claims such as ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or other constitutional violations. Death penalty cases automatically receive post-conviction review under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-105. A collateral appeal is necessary when new evidence proves a defendant's innocence, when ineffective legal representation significantly impacted the trial outcome, or when other constitutional violations occurred that were not addressed in a direct appeal.
Determining whether to pursue a direct or collateral appeal depends on the circumstances of the case. If a defendant believes a legal error occurred during the trial, a direct appeal should be filed as soon as possible. If new evidence proves the defendant’s innocence or if there were constitutional violations not addressed in the trial record, a collateral appeal (such as a habeas corpus petition or post-conviction relief motion) is the appropriate course of action. In some cases, both types of appeals may be necessary—first pursuing a direct appeal to address trial errors and later filing a collateral appeal to present new evidence or raise constitutional claims.
Understanding the differences between direct and collateral appeals is crucial for anyone seeking to challenge a conviction. While direct appeals focus on trial errors and must be filed immediately after sentencing, collateral appeals allow for new evidence and constitutional claims to be raised later. Texas and Arkansas have specific statutes and procedural rules governing these appeals, making it essential for defendants to adhere to strict deadlines and legal requirements. Given the complexity of post-conviction relief, consulting an experienced appellate attorney can significantly impact the outcome of an appeal and help protect a defendant’s rights.
Allow Mothershed Law to empower you through the process.