Opinion issued November 17, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 20

- 00163

- CV

——————————— WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS , Appella nt

V.
TERRY HOLCOMB , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 506th District Court

Waller County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 16

- 07

- 23803

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Th is appeal arises from the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees and sanctions
to appellee Terry Holcomb on his successful motion to dismiss Waller County ’s suit2

under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”) 1 per the judgment of this

Court. The underlying suit arose when Waller County sued Holcomb for challenging
the County ’s post ing of signs bar ring holders of concealed

- handgun licenses from
entering the Waller County Courthouse while armed in violation of Section 411.209

of the Government Code . Section 411.209 forbids a political subdivision from
posting notices barring entry to armed concealed

- hand gun permit holders unless
entry is prohibited by statute

. The district court agreed with the County, grant ed its
request for declaratory relief
, and den ied Holcomb’s plea to the jurisdiction and

motion to dismiss the County’s suit under the TCPA

. On appeal , this Court reversed the trial court’s judgment

. See Holcomb v.

Waller Cnty

. , 546 S.W.3d 833 , 835 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet.

denied) (“ Holcomb I

”). Waller County did not file a motion for rehearing or en banc

reconsideration of our judgmen t. Instead, Waller County petitioned the Texas
Supreme Court to review our judgment

. T he Texas Supreme Court denied Waller
County’s petition and our plenary power expired. We issued our mandate and

remanded the case to the district court with instru ctions to dismiss Waller County’s

suit for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction after holding further proceedings only to

award Holcomb his court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, other expenses incurred

1 See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE §§ 27.001

– .011. Th e underlying suit involved the pre

- September 1, 2019 version of the TCPA.3

in defending against the action, and any other relie f available under the TCPA

. Id

.

at 840. On remand, t he trial judge recused himself and a visiting judge rendered
judgment for Holcomb in the amount of $71,537.50 in attorney’s fees and $25,000

in sanctions and dismissed t he case with prejudice.
This second appeal arises from those further proceedings

. In four issues,
Waller County challenges the trial court ’ s judgment by asserting that (1) the trial
court lacked jurisdiction on remand because Holcomb did not timely file his notice
of appeal, rendering this court’s opinion, judgment, and mandate void ; (2) the TCPA
did not apply to the declaratory

- judgment suit ; (3) this Court lacked authority to

award attorney’s fees and costs to Holcomb because the TCPA only allows for such

awards for cases dismissed on the merits, and not cases dismissed as a result of a
lack of jurisdiction; and ( 4 ) Waller County is immune from liabili ty

.

Trial Court’s Authority to Comply with Mandate

In its first issue
, Waller County contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
to enter a judgment for attorney’s fees and sanctions because our judgment, opinion,

and mandate in Holcomb I were void due to Holcomb’s untimely filing of his notice
of appeal. In its second issue, Waller County dispute s our interpretation of the TCPA
and argues that a declaratory

- judgment action is not a “legal action” under Chapter

27. In its third issue, Waller County complains that attorney’s fees and sanctions4

may be awarded under the TCPA when a case has been dismissed on the merits but
not for a dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction.
Although Waller County frames its appellate issue as a challenge to the trial

court ’ s order after remand
, in reality it is a collateral at tack on this Court ’ s judgment

in Holcomb I

. “ [T]he question before the Court is whether there remains a live
controversy such that this appeal should continue. ” Matter of Estate of Abraham
,
No. 08

- 19

- 00231

- CV, 2020 WL 4034985, at *2 (Tex. App.

— El Paso July 17, 2020,
no pet.) (mem. op.). We hold that no live controversy exist s because our plenary

power over our judgment in the Holcomb I appeal expired before Waller County

filed this appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 19.1 (a) (plenary power over judgment expires “60
days after judgment if no timely filed motion for rehearing or en banc

reconsideration, or timely filed motion to extend time to file such a motion, is then
pending”); T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22 .225(a) (“ A judgment of a court of appeals is
conclusive on the facts of the case in all civil cases.”)

.
When the Texas Supreme Court denied Waller’s County’s petition for
discretionary review in August 2018
, we in turn issued our mandate within the time
prescribed in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 18.1(a)(2)
(requiring issuance of appellate court ’ s mandate 10 days after Texas Supreme Court

refuses or dismisses petition for discreti onary review) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.3(b)
(listing issu ing mandate as one limited action appellate court may take after5

expiration of plenary power). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to evaluate the

merits of Waller County’s first
, second , and third issues because our judgment was
final by the time Waller County filed this second appeal

. Wise Elec. Coop., Inc. v.

Am. Hat Co. , 476 S.W.3d 671, 679 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2015, no pet.)
(concluding trial court lacked jurisdiction over claims attacking prior judgment of
appellate court after Texas Supreme Court had denied petition for review, appellate

court had issued mandate, and case had been remanded to trial court and retried);

Abraham , 2020 WL 4034985, at *2 (noting appellate cour t’s final judgment where
Texas Supreme Court denied petitions for discretionary review in two separate
appeals).
Because Waller County did not raise its first, second, or third issue s before

this Court’s mandate issued , the only remaining issue is whether the trial court
complied with this Court’s mandate in Holcomb I

.
A. Standard of review
The mandate is the “official notice” from the appellate court to the court

below. Min v. H & S Crane Sales, Inc. , 472 S.W.3d 773, 778 (Tex. App.

— Houston
[14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied)

. The mandate advises the trial court of the appellate

court’s action and directs the trial court to have the appellate court’s judgment
recognized, obeyed, and executed. S ee S audi v. Brieven , 176 S.W.3d 108, 116 (Tex.

App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied)

. On remand , the trial court “has no6

authority to take any action that is inconsistent with or beyond the scope of that
which is necessary to give full effect to the appellate court’s judgment and mandate.”

Phillips v. Bramlett , 407 S.W.3d 229, 234 ( Tex. 2013) ; see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 51.1 (b).

On remand, a trial court has a ministerial duty to observe and carry out the
appellate court’s mandate. Harris Cnty

. Children ’ s Protective Servs

. v. Olvera , 971

S.W.2d 172, 175

– 76 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (op. on
reh’g) (citing Myers v. Myers , 515 S.W.2d 334, 335 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Houston [1st

Dist.] 1974, writ dism ’ d) ). Trial courts must do the best they can to follow the

directives in the mandate. Madeksho v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols & Friend , 112

S.W.3d 679, 691 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (en banc). A

trial court abuses its discretion when it does not. Id . at 685. A trial court abuses its

discretion if “ it acts without reference to guiding rules and principles such that the
ruling is arbitrary or unreasonable .” Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods

. , LLC , 601

S.W.3d 704, 717 (Tex. 2020 ).

B. Analysis

O ur mandate in Holcomb I stated:
This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on November 28, 2016. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s judgment in the following respects: the trial court erred in granting a declaratory judgment in favor of Waller County and in denying Terry Holcomb, Sr.’s motion to dismiss Waller County’s declaratory judgment action pursuant to Chapter 27 of the T exas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.7

Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
Our opinion instructed the trial court to “ dismiss the County's suit for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction after holding further proceedings for the limited purpose of
awarding Holcomb his court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, other expenses

incurred in defending against the action as are equitable and just, and any other relief

available under the [TCPA].” Holcomb I , 546 S.W.3d at 840

. T he trial conducted a
hearing and reviewed the evidence, the applicable law, and the pleadings in the
record. The trial court awarded over $70,000 in attorney’s fees to Holcomb, imposed

$25,000 in sanctions against Waller County, and dismissed the case with prejudice

.
We conclude that t he trial court carried out the ministerial duty of addressing

the request for attorney’s fees and sanctions because this issue was remanded to the

trial court when we reversed the trial court’s s ummary judgment against Holcomb.

See Holcomb I , 546 S.W.3d at 840 . The trial court also carried out the ministerial
duty of dismissing the case under the TCPA. As a result, the trial court did not abuse

its discretion because it complied with our mandate and had jurisdiction over

Holcomb’s claim for attorney’s fees and sanctions

. See Jay Petroleum, L.L.C. v.

EOG Res., Inc. , 332 S.W.3d 534, 541 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet.
denied) (noting trial court did not abuse its discretion by complying with appellate

court’s mandate on remand ) ; Madeksho , 112 S.W.3d at 691 (“[T]rial judges must do8

the best they can to interpret what we have said and follow it. By attempting to settle

the claims to attorneys’ fees here, the trial judge did nothing more than that.”).

W aller County’s final issue is that it cannot be liable to Holcomb for
attorney’s fees and sanctions under the TCPA because it is immune from liability.

“ Immunity from liability . . . must be pleaded, or else it is waived.” Kinnear v. Tex.

Comm'n on Human Rights ex rel. Hale , 14 S.W.3d 299, 300 (Tex. 2000) . After
carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that Waller County addressed sovereign
immunity in its responsive pleadings to Holcomb ’ s plea to the jurisdiction and TCPA

motion. But t he Texas Supreme Court has previously acknowledged th at sovereign
immunity does not shield a government entity from claims for attorney ’ s fees under

the TCPA. See State ex rel. Best v. Harper , 562 S.W.3d 1, 19 (Tex. 2018). S overeign
immunity does not preclude Waller County ’s liability for Holcomb’s attorney’ s fees

and sanctions. We overrule the County’s appellate issues

.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment

.

Sarah Beth Landau Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes
, Lloyd , and Landau

.