Opinion issued December 15, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00752-CR

———————————

JERROD P. ROLAND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 13-CCR-168560

O P I N I O N

Appellant, Jerrod P. Roland, pleaded no contest to official oppression, a Class 

A misdemeanor. The trial court placed Roland on deferred adjudication community 

supervision for six months. On appeal, he contends that the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction over his case and the judgment of conviction is void. 
2

We vacate and dismiss the trial court’s judgment.

Background

Roland worked at the Fort Bend County Juvenile Probation Department as a 

drill instructor. The complaint alleged that Roland assaulted two juveniles he 

supervised. The State charged Roland by information with two counts of the Class 

A misdemeanor offense of official oppression in Fort Bend County Court at Law 

No. 4.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.03(a); (d). The information alleged that Roland, 

on or about May 26, 2013:

Count I

then and there intentionally subject [Complainant #1] to mistreatment 

that [Roland] knew was unlawful, to-wit: hitting or slapping 

[Complainant #1], and [Roland] was then and there acting under color 

of his employment as drill instructor with the Fort Bend County 

Juvenile Probation Department.

Count II

then and there intentionally subject [Complainant #2] to mistreatment

that [Roland] knew was unlawful, to-wit: pushing [Complainant #2],

and [Roland] was then and there acting under color of his employment

as drill instructor with the Fort Bend County Juvenile Probation

Department.

County Court at Law Number 4 transferred the case to County Court at Law Number 

5, and the State moved to transfer jurisdiction to the district court, asserting that the 

1 Cause number 13-CCR-168560 was assigned to this case. 
3

“proper court of jurisdiction for a charge of official oppression is the Criminal 

District Court.” The trial court set the matter for hearing, but the State passed. 

In October 2016, the Fort Bend County District Attorney presented this case

to a grand jury, and Roland was indicted on the misdemeanor charges. The district 

court presided over the indicted charges.

2 The county court at law placed the charges 

brought by information on hold.3 Roland moved to dismiss the district court case on 

statute of limitations, and the district court granted the motion. The State did not

appeal the district court’s ruling.

Roland filed an amended motion to dismiss the pending charges in the county 

court, challenging the county court’s jurisdiction. He asserted that the county court 

lacked jurisdiction because only district courts have original jurisdiction over 

official-oppression cases. In response, the State argued that district courts and county 

courts have concurrent jurisdiction over official-oppression cases. 

2 The district court assigned cause number 16-DCR-75581 to this case. The 

allegations in the indictment in the district court case mirrored those in the county 

court case, except the indictment included tolling language:

And it is further presented in and to said court that during a period 

from July 2, 2013 until October 24, 2016 an information charging the 

above offense was pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, to wit: 

cause number 13-CCR-168560 in the County Court at Law Number 5 

of Fort Bend County, Texas, styled the State of Texas vs. Jerrod P. 

Roland. 

3 By this time, County Court at Law Number 5 had transferred the case to County 

Court at Law Number 6.
4

The trial court denied Roland’s motion to dismiss. The same day, Roland 

pleaded no contest to the official-oppression charges, and the trial court placed 

Roland on deferred adjudication community supervision for six months. Roland 

appealed. 

Jurisdiction

In his sole issue, Roland contends that his conviction is void. He argues that 

the county court at law lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case because the 

district court, not the county court at law, had sole jurisdiction to hear an officialoppression case.

4 The State responds that district courts and county courts have 

concurrent original jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses involving official 

misconduct.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the trial court’s power over the subject matter of 

the case. Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A party 

may challenge the jurisdiction at any time. Puente v. State, 71 S.W.3d 340, 343 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2002). A judgment of conviction is void if the trial court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction. Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786, 789 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

“Whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we 

4 Roland also argues that the trial court’s judgment was void because the statute of 

limitations had expired. Because the issue of jurisdiction disposes of the appeal, we 

do not reach Roland’s limitations challenge.
5

review de novo.” Comunidad Corp. v. State, 445 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.).

To determine whether a court has jurisdiction, we review the Texas 

Constitution or applicable statutes granting the court its jurisdiction. See Gallagher 

v. State, 690 S.W.2d 587, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (en banc) (“Where jurisdiction 

is given by the Constitution over cases involving designated kinds of subject matters, 

the grant is exclusive, unless a contrary intent is shown by the context. Further, it 

has been stated that the jurisdiction of the district court is fixed by the state 

Constitution and is immutable except by constitutional method of amendment”).

Generally, county courts at law have exclusive original jurisdiction over 

misdemeanor offenses. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 26.045(a); see also TEX. CONST. art. 

V, §§ 16–17. The exception to this general rule, however, is that county courts at 

law do not have exclusive original jurisdiction over misdemeanors involving official 

misconduct and offenses punishable by a fine of $500 or less. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 

26.045(a). Article 4.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure confers original 

jurisdiction of proceedings of all misdemeanors involving official misconduct to 

district courts and criminal district courts. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 4.05.

A defendant commits official oppression if the State proves beyond a 

reasonable doubt that a “public servant acting under color of his office or

employment . . . intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention,
6

search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful.” TEX.

PENAL CODE § 39.03(a)(1). Absent exceptions inapplicable here, official oppression 

is a Class A misdemeanor. Id. § 39.03(d). The penalty for this offense is a fine of up 

to $4,000, confinement in jail for up to one year, or both. Id. § 12.21.

Here, the State charged Roland with two counts of official oppression. These 

charges remained pending until the trial court denied Roland’s amended motion to 

dismiss and entered a judgment of conviction against Roland following his nocontest plea.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals provided a non-exhaustive list of rare 

circumstances that renders a judgment for conviction for a crime void:

(1) the document purporting to be a charging instrument (i.e. 

indictment, information, or complaint) does not satisfy the 

constitutional requisites of a charging instrument, thus the trial court 

has no jurisdiction over the defendant, (2) the trial court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction over the offense charged, such as when a

misdemeanor involving official misconduct is tried in a county court at

law, (3) the record reflects that there is no evidence to support the 

conviction, or (4) an indigent defendant is required to face criminal trial 

proceedings without appointed counsel, when such has not been 

waived, in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright.5

Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (emphasis added), 

abrogated on other grounds by Wright v. State, 506 S.W.3d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2016). The precedent of the Court of Criminal Appeals is binding on this court. See

5 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
7

State ex rel. Wilson v. Briggs, 171 Tex. Crim. 479, 482, 351 S.W.2d 892, 894 (1961) 

(“The Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort in this [S]tate in criminal 

matters. This being so, no other court of this state has authority to overrule or 

circumvent its decisions, or disobey its mandates.”); TEX. CONST. art. V, § 5(a) 

(Court of Criminal Appeals is final authority for criminal law in Texas); Farris v.

State, 581 S.W.3d 920, 924 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) 

(“[W]e, as an intermediate appellate court, are bound in criminal cases to follow the 

decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals”).

Official oppression is a subcategory of misdemeanors involving official

misconduct. See Emerson v. State, 662 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1983), aff’d, 727 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (official oppression “is 

within the ambit of the phrase ‘official misconduct’ as that term is used in the State 

Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure”). A conviction for official

oppression in a county court at law is void. See Gallagher, 690 S.W.2d at 593–94; 

Nix, 65 S.W.3d at 667–68; TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 4.05.

The State argues that Campos v. State, 783 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1989, pet. ref’d), holds that district courts and county courts have 

concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor official-oppression cases. In Campos, the 

court determined that article 4.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—the authority 

granting county courts at law jurisdiction over all misdemeanors—was an 
8

“exception to the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts.” Id. at 8. However, our 

sister court clarified its earlier decision and explained that “the statement in Campos

that article 4.07 provided county courts at law jurisdiction over all misdemeanors

amounts to an obiter dictum and so does not bind this court.” Dailing v. State, 546 

S.W.3d 438, 450 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (citing Garrett v. 

State, 377 S.W.3d 697, 704 n.27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)). Neither the Code of 

Criminal Procedure nor the Government Code grants original jurisdiction over

misdemeanors involving official misconduct to county courts at law. Cf. TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. art. 4.05; TEX. GOV’T CODE § 26.045(a).

We therefore hold that the county court at law lacked jurisdiction to enter a

judgment of conviction for official oppression against Roland. See, e.g., Gallagher, 

690 S.W.2d at 594 (county criminal court at law lacked jurisdiction to try officialoppression case); Emerson, 662 S.W.2d at 94 (jurisdiction for official-oppression 

proceedings lies in district courts); Rendon v. State, 695 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 1984, pet. ref’d) (op. on reh’g.) (applying Emerson and holding that 

county court at law lacked jurisdiction over official-oppression prosecution). 

Conclusion

We vacate and dismiss the judgment of the trial court.
9

Sarah Beth Landau

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Landau.

Publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).