NO. 07-08 -039 1-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER31, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ LAURANCE KRIEG EL, APPE LLA NT

v. PAR ME R CO UN TY SH ER IF F’ S OF FI CE , ET A L., APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 7 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P AR ME R CO UNT Y; TH NO. 9724 ; HON. GORDON H . GREEN, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t Lau ra nce Kr ieg el, appear ing pro s e, fil ed a noti ce of appeal . Base d on the c ontentof the n oti ce, w e noti fied Kr ieg el by letter of ou r apparent lac k o f jur is dicti on. W e afforde d hi m fi fte en d ays t o res po nd . W e s pe c i fi c al l y req ui red K r i eg el ’ s res po nse include a copy of

any order or j udgm enthe so u gh tto app eal. Kriegel f iled a tim ely re spons e. From the re spons e, w e dis cer n that throug h a s ing le noti ce of appeal Kr ieg el seeks to app eal an interlocut oryorder in the u n d e rly ing ci v il proceed ing as w ell as hisIn his respo nse, Kri eg el al so compl ain s that the Parmer County Cour t has tak en 1 no acti on on his appl ic ati on for w ri t of ce rt iorar i. See T ex . R. Ci v . P. 575- 591. This i s n ot the p ro per

su bje ct of an ordin ar

y appeal . “A ppeal s c an be tak en i n Tex as onl y from final j u d g m e n t s a n d i n t e r l o c u t o r y o rd e rs m a d e a p p e a l a b l e b y r u l e o r s t a t u t e . ” 6 R o y

W. McDonald & Elaine A. Graf ton Carlson, T exas Ci v il Practice: App eals § 1: 8 (2d ed . 199 9). W e do not reach a dis cus si on of t he procedu re Kr ieg el follo w ed in attempt ing to 2 per fect appe al of his co mplai nts . 2 conv icti on for a C las s C mis demeanor i n j ust ic e c our

t. F ind ing w e l ack

j ur is dicti on ov er 1 the mat ters of

w hich Kriegel com plains, w e dism iss the att em pte d ap pea l. 2 Di sc uss ion On o ur ow n moti on, w e c onsi der our j ur is dicti on ov er

the attempt ed appe al. See Buff alo Roy alt y Cor p. v. Enr on C or p., 906 S.W .2d 275, 277 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1995, no w ri t) ( noti ng our

obl ig ati on to co nsi der

j ur is dicti on sua sponte ). W e turn firs t t o the order of w hic h Kr ieg el compl ain s. T he doc ument, enti tl ed “ Order D eny ing M oti on to Tran sfer, ” w as si g ned i n the under ly ing ci v il ca se by the tr ial co ur

t on J une 10, 2008. Ac cordin g to the terms of

the ord er, it den ied a m otion of Kriegel to tr a n s fer a criminal case in justice cour t sty led “ The State of Texas v. Laure nce Krieg el, ” cause nu mb er 34,8 40, to the district cour t. Kr ieg el offers n o proof or author ity thatthi s o rd er

is appeal abl e as a final order . The leg is lat ure has n o t aut hor iz ed th e i nter loc utor y appeal of an order

deny ing the transfer Kr ieg el soug ht. See Tex . Ci v . Prac. & R em. C ode An n. § 51.014( a) ( Ver non 200 8) ( li sti ng orders a v ail abl e for int er loc utor y appeal ). Nor

has Kri eg el supp li ed proof of an ag re ement and order

for t he i nter loc utor

y appeal of an order

not spec ified bysecti on 51.014( a) . See Te x . C i v . P ra c . &R e m. C o d e A n n . § 5 1 . 0 1 4 ( d ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 8 ) . W e fi n d n o j u r i s d i c t i o nal basis for our rev iew

of the Jun e 10 order.Kr ieg el als o att aches to his re sp onse as “a ppeal abl e orders” a w it ness aff ida v it , 3 the j ur y l is t, and j ur

y ch arg e. Our

lack of jur is dicti on i n Kr ieg el’ s a ttempt ed appe al obv iat es the n eed for further

menti on of thes e doc uments . 3 Next, K rie g el seek s t o c omplai n of hi s c onv icti on i n c ause number 34,8 40 for v iolating a coun ty burn ban . Aju ry foun d Kriegel guiltyand f ined him $5 00. Krieg el also seek s t o c hal len g e a p re -t ri al order i n the ca se. 3 A c ommis si oners c our t i s a uthor iz ed to make a n order prohi bit ing or

rest ri cti ng outdoor bur nin g i n uni ncor porated county areas under spec ified ci rc umstan ces . See T e x. Local Gov ’tC ode An n. § 352.081 (c ) (V er non 200 6) . A v iol ati on of an order prohi bit ing or re str icti ng outd oor

bur nin g i s a C las s C mis demeanor . See Tex . Loc al Go v’t Code Ann. § 352.081( h) (Ver non 2006). A Cl ass C m is demeanor is punis habl e bya fine only . See T ex. Pen. Cod e Ann . §§ 12 .23 & 12.4 1(3) (Vernon 200 3). “Justice s o f t h e pe ace sh all hav e or ig ina l jur is dicti on in cr imi nal cas es: (1 ) puni shabl e by fine onl y . . . .” Te x. Co de Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar

t. 4.11( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007) . The le g is lat ure has v est ed co n st it uti onal co unty co ur ts w it h “ appel lat e j ur is dicti on in cr imi nal ca ses of w hic h just ic e courts and other inferi or court s hav e ori g ina l jur is dicti on.” Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n . § 26. 046 ( Ver non 200 4) . “The county co urts shal l hav e appel lat e jur is dicti on in cr imi nal cases of w hic h j ust ic e c our

ts and ot her

i nferi or co urts hav e or ig ina l jurisdiction. ” T ex. C ode Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 4.0 8 (Verno n 20 05). “App eals f rom a justice or mu nicipal cou rt, including app eals f rom f inal judgme nts in bo nd forfeiture procee dings, sh all be h eard by

the county

co urt ex cepti n c ases w here the co unty co urt has no jur is dicti on, in w hic h counti es suc h appeals shall be heard bythe proper court .” Tex . C ode Cr im. Proc. Ann. ar

t. 45.042 (V er non 2007) . Therefore, i n c ases , as here, w here or ig ina lSee T ex . Cons t. art . V, § 1 ( cour ts in w hic h j udi ci al pow er i s v est ed) , Tex . C onst . 4 art. V, § 6 (c our

ts of appeal s) ; Tex. Gov ’tCode Ann. §§ 21.001 (i nherent p ow er and duty of courts), 22. 220 (civ il j urisdiction ), 22.2 01 (cou rts of app eals districts), 22. 221 (w rit pow er ), 73.0 01- 73.002 (t ra nsfer of cour ts of appeal s’ ca ses ) and 22. 202( i) ( transfer of cas es betw een F irst and F our teent h C our

ts of Appeal s) ( Ver non 2004 & Sup p. 20 08) ; and Tex . C ode C ri m. Proc. Ann. art. 4.01 (c our ts w it h c ri minal j ur is dicti on) & a rt . 4. 03 ( cour ts of app eals) (Verno n 20 05). Becau se w e are w ithou t jurisdiction to add ress Kriegel’s com plaint s, not hing h erein 5 shal l be reg arded as an o pin ion on t he mer it s. 4 jur is dicti on l ies i n the j ust ic e co u rt , a p p e a l is to the c ounty co urt and not the c our t of appeal s. Cf

. St ate v . Al ley , 158 S.W .3d 485, 488 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2005) ( findi ng co urt of appeal s c or re ctl y

di smi ss ed St ate’ s appeal for lac k of j ur is dicti on w hen Stat e attempt ed to app eal de cision of

justice court directly to cou rt of app eals). Th e ap pea l from justice court to c ounty

co urt i s b y

tr ial de n ov o, as i f the prosec uti on had or ig ina ll y co mmenced i n tha t cour t. See Te x . Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . a rt . 4 4 . 1 7 ( Verno n 20 07). Here, Kriegel shou ld hav e broug ht hi s a ppeal from j ust ic e c our t i n the co unty

co urt. Con cl usi on The ju ri sdi cti on of a c our t of appeal s i s d efined by the Tex as Con sti tuti on and statu te. The interlocut oryorder f rom the t rial cou rt a nd judgme nt of co nviction f rom just ice 4 cour t Kr ieg el seek s to chal len g e here are notw it hin the cont ours o f that j ur is dicti on. W e, acc ordin g ly , di smi ss the appeal for want o f jur is dicti on. 5 It is so ordered. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice