### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 060 -CR NO. 03-07-00061- CR NO. 03-07-00062- CR NO. 03-07-00063- CR NO. 03-07-00064- CR

A. Ni c hol as Al e xa nde r , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 1 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NOS. 7209 65, 72 0966 , 7 2096 7, 7209 68 & 720 969 HO NORAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N
We decide here that a per son convicted in a municipal court of r ecor d and fine d $100 or less, and w hose convic tion is affirmed by the county

court at law, may

not appea l to this Court to c ha lle ng e the c on sti tut ion a lity of the or din a nc e on wh ic h his co nv ic tio n wa s bas e d. We r e a c h th is conclusion af

ter c are fully considering the statutes re g ulating this Court’s subject- matter jurisdiction and the r ight to invoke that jurisdiction.

I n e a c h of the se c a

us e s, a pp e lla nt A. Ni c ho la s A le xan de r w a s c on vic te d in the City of Austin Municipal Court for viol ating the city ’s smoking or dinance and fine d $100. He a ppeale d the c on vict io ns on the r e c or d to the Tr a vis Cou nty Cou rt a t L a w N o. 1. Am on g oth e r t hin g s,
a pp e lla nt c on te nd e d th a t unde r the c ir c ums tanc e s pre se nte d, the a pp lic a tio n of the or din a nc e to h im2

violated t he Tex as C onstitut ion’s prohibition ag ainst ex post facto law s. See Tex. Const. art. I , § 16. Th e c ounty

c ourt a t la w a ff ir me d th e c on vic tio ns , a

nd app ell ant t

he n g a ve no tic e of

a pp e a l to thi s Court . We c onclud e that a pp e lla nt d oe s n ot h a ve a

ri g ht o f a pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t and wi ll d ism iss the a pp e a ls. Discussion 1. App e als fr om inf

e rio r c ourts t

o c ount y c ourts A per s o n c o n v ic te d o f a n o f f e n s e in a mu

n ic ip a l o r ju s ti c e o f th e p e a c e court may
a pp e a l th a t c on vic tio n to a cou nt y c ourt or c ounty c ourt a t la w. Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt
. 44.02 (West 2006) (municip al courts and justice of the pe ace courts); Te x . Gov’t Code Ann. § 30.00014(a) (West Supp. 2006) (municipal courts of r ecor d). As a gene ral rule , the appe al from the infer ior court to the c ounty court i s b y t ri al de novo. Te x . Code Crim. Proc. Ann. ar ts. 44.17, 45.042(b) ( West 2006). But in an a ppeal f rom a municipal c ourt of rec ord, the county court may not retry the ca se; instead, it must deter mine the appeal on the basis of t he errors shown in the municipa l court re cord. Id . arts. 44.17, 45.042(b) ; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 30.00014(b). The county court then aff irms, reve rses, or r efor

ms the municipal court’s judgme nt. Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 30.00024(a) (West Supp. 2006).
2. App e als fo llo wing

tri al d enov o in c ount

y c ourt I f a defe ndant i s convicted following a trial de novo in county court, he may appea l that conviction to the cour t of appe als. Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 44.02. This rig ht of appea l is subject, howeve r, to a limitation placed on the jurisdiction of t he courts of appeals by the code of criminal proc edure

. Acting pursuant to its constitutional authority to reg ulate the jurisdiction of the3

c ourt s o f a

pp e a ls, the le g isl a tur e ha s p rov id ed th at the c ourt s o f a pp e a ls “ sh a ll h a ve a

pp e llate jur isd ic tio n c oe xten siv e wi th t he lim its of

the ir re sp e c tiv e dis tr ic ts i n a ll c ri min a l c a se s e xce pt t ho se in which the death pe nalty has been a ssessed.” T ex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 4.03 (West 2005);

see Te x. Con st. a rt . V, § 6. Ha vin g thu s c on fe rr e d b ro a d ju ri sd ic tio n to he a r c ri min a l a pp e a ls i n a ll non-death penalty

case s, article 4.03 g oes on to impose this restriction:
This Article shall n o t b e so construed a s to embrac e any case which has be en appea led from a

ny inferior cour t t o the county

court, the c ounty

criminal cour

t, or c ounty c ourt a t la w, in whichthe fi ne imp os e d b y the c ounty

c ourt , th e c ounty criminal cour

t or county

court at law does not e x cee d one hundre d dollars, unless the sole issue is the constitutionalit y of the statute or

ordinanc e on which the c onviction is based.
Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 4.03. I t is important to note that this jurisdi ctional re striction—and the constitutional issue ex ception to the re striction—applies o n l y when the f

ine imposed by the

c ou nty c ou rt do e s n ot e xceed $1 00 , th a t is , w he n th e a pp e a l f ro m th e inf

e ri or c ourt to t he c ounty court is by

trial de novo.
3. App e als fo llo wing

af fi rmanc eon t

he re c or d in c ount

y c ourt A defendant may also appea l to a court of a ppeals if he is convicted in a municipa l court of r ecor d and that con v i ction is affirme d by the county

court. Te x . Gov’t Code Ann. § 30.00027(a) (West 2004). Althoug h article 4.03 place s no restriction on a c ourt of appe als’s jurisdiction in such cases, se ction 30.00027(a) permits an appe al to a cour t of appea ls only

if “the fine a ssessed ag ainst the defe ndant [ in municipal court] exceeds $100 and the judgme nt is affirmed” by the county

court. Id . There is no ex ception for appea ls of constitutional iss ues. Se e id

.The distinction betwee n appellate jurisdiction and a def endant’ s rig ht of appe al i s not unique 1 to a pp e a ls f ro m munic ipa l court s of re c or d. F or e xamp le , a

de fe nd a nt w ho e nte rs a

ba rg a ine d g uil ty ple a ha s o nly a lim ite d r ig ht of app eal de sp ite the br oa d g ra nt o f a pp e llate jur isd ic tio n f

ound in article 4.03. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2). 4

Severa l cou rts of appe als, including this Court i n an unpublished opinion, have expressly or impliedly construed article 4.03 to g ive a defe ndant convicted in a municipal court of
rec ord and f

in e d $ 1 0 0 o r le s s th e r ig h t to a p p e a l to th e c o u rt o f a

p p e a ls if th e s o le is s u e is the constitutionalit y of the statute or ordinanc e on which the conviction is based. Se e Pr esto n v . S tat e , 14 5 S. W.3 d 6 83 , 6 84 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 2004 , no p e t.) ; Bo y d v . S tat e , 11 S.W .3d 324, 325 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 99 , n o p e t.) ; Lop e z v . S tat e , 6 4 9 S. W. 2d 165, 166 ( T e x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 19 83 , n o p e t.) ; Pr esto n v . S tat e , No. 01-03-00480- CR, 2003 Tex . App. L EXI S 8322, at *3-4 (T ex. App.—Houston [ 1st Dist.] Sept. 25, 2003, no pet
. ) (m em . o p ., not desig nated f or pu bli c a tio n) ; Tan ne hil l v . S tat e , N o . 0 3

- 9 7

- 0 0 2 0 8

- CV , 1997 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 3 4 6 2 , a t * 3 ( T e x. App.—Austin J uly

3, 1997, writ ref

’d) ( not desig nated fo r p u b lication). Afte r re consideringthe matter, we conclude that these opinions er r b y faili ng to rec og nize the disti nction betwee n the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of a ppeals (w hich is presc ribed by arti cle 4.03) and the defe ndant’s rig ht to invoke that jurisdiction (which in case s orig inating in a municipal court of r ecor d is determined by

section 30.00027). 1
Conclu sion Be cause the jurisdiction of the cour ts of appea ls is define d as it is by article 4.03, an

a pp e a l to a c ourt of a

pp e a ls fr om a tri a l de nov o in county c ourt is a va ila ble wh e n th e so le iss ue is the constitutionality

of the statute or

ordinanc e on which the conv i ct i o n i s b ased or when the f ine imposed by

the county

court e x cee ds $100. S

ee E x part e Brand , 8 2 2 S. W. 2 d 6 3 6 , 6 3 8 n . 3 ( T e x.As enac ted i n 1965, article 4.03 define d the jurisdiction of the cour t of criminal appe als and 2 excluded from the court’s jurisdiction those case s appea led from an inf erior c ourt to the county

court in which the fine im p o s ed b y the county

court did not exceed $100. See Code of Criminal Procedur e, 59th L eg ., R.S., ch. 722, § 1, art. 4.03, 1965 Tex. Gen. L aws, vol. 2, at 317, 329-30. Our rese arc h i n d i ca t es that the fir st municipal court of re cord w as cr eate d in 1969. See Act of Apr. 1, 1969, 61st L eg ., R.S., ch. 762, § 1, 1969 Tex. Gen. L aws 2255. Be cause all appea ls from inf e ri or c ourt s to the c ounty

c ourt we re by tr ia l de no vo wh e n a

rt ic le 4. 03 wa s or ig ina lly

e na c te d, it is understanda

ble why the jurisdictional r estriction was worde d as it was. The constitutional iss ue e xce pti on to th is j ur isd ic tio na l li mit a tio n w a s a dd e d in 19 81 , w he n a

rt ic le 4. 03 wa s ame nd e d to define the criminal jurisdiction of the cour ts of appea ls. See Act of Ma y 31, 1981, 67th L eg ., R.S., ch. 291, § 102, 1981 Te x . Gen. L aws 761, 802. 5 Crim. App. 1992). Be cause the def endant’ s rig ht of appea l is de fined a s it is by section 30.00027(a ),

a n a pp e a l to a c ourt of a pp e a ls f oll ow inga n a ff

ir mance on th e re c or d in

c ounty c ourt is a va ila ble only if the fine imposed in the municipal court e x cee ds $100. Se e id . Thus, beca use of the unusua l interplay betwee n the statute def

ining the jur isdiction o f t h e courts of a ppeals a nd the statutes defining a def

endant’ s rig ht to invoke that jurisdiction, a person who is convic ted in a trial de novo in c ounty c ourt a nd fi ne d $ 10 0 o r l e ss f or vio la tin g wh a t he be lie ve s is a n unc on sti tut ion a l st a tut e or ordinanc e may

take his constitutional issue to a court of a ppeals, but a pe rson convicted in a
mun ic ipa l c ourt

of re c or d a nd fi ne d $ 10 0 o r l e ss c a nn ot a pp e a l a c on sti tut ion a l is su e pa st the c ounty

c ourt
. We do no t kn ow if thi s dis tin c tio n be tw e e n c a se s that or ig inate in m un ic ipa l c ourt s of re c or d an d ca se s tha t or ig inate in m un ic ipa l c ourt s w ith ou t r e c or d o r j us tic e of the pe a c e c ourt s was intende d by

the leg islature or is me rely an acc ident of statutory history

. I t may

very well be 2 that w he n it a me nd e d a rt ic le 4. 03 in 1 98 1, the le g isl a tur e be lie ve d th a t th e a me ndme nt w ou ld p e rm it constitutional iss ues to be ra ised in the courts of a ppeals in all case s appea led from an infe rior cour t to a county

court a nd not merely

in those appea led by

trial de novo. B ut the best ev i d en ce o f t he6

collective intent of the l eg islators is the s tatutory text
. Bo y k in v . S tat e , 8 1 8 S. W. 2 d

7 8 2 , 7 8 5 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1991). Article 4.03 is c lear and unambig uous, as is section 30.00027(a ). Even if one questions the result as a matter of policy , apply ing the plain lang uag e of the statutes does not lead t o an absur d result that the leg islature could not possibly have intende d. Id

. T h e le g is lature may have intende d the distinction it has draw n reg arding the rig ht of persons c onvicted of minor of fense s to a pp e a l th e c on sti tut ion a lity of the statut e or or din a nc e vio la te d. Mo re ov e r, our r e a din g of the pla in lang uag e of the statutes is consistent with that of t he court of cr iminal appeals in Brand . 822 S.W .2d

a t 63 8 n .3 . A lth ou g h we fi nd ours e lve s bou nd to dis mis s th e se a pp e a ls, we inv ite the le g isl a tur e to revisit this iss ue and a

mend sec tion 30.00027(a) to permit appea ls of constitutional iss ues without reg ard to the a

mount of the fine. I n th e s e c a

u s e s , th e f

in e s a s s e s s e d

b y th e mu n ic ip a l c o u rt o f

r e c o r d d o n o t e xc e ed $1 00 . F or thi s r e a so n, se c tio n 3 0. 00 02 7( a ) d oe s n ot g ra nt a pp e lla nt a ri g ht o f a pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t,
e ve n to c ha lle ng e the c on sti tut ion a lity of the or din a nc e he wa s f

ound g uil ty of vio la tin g . B e c a

us e our jurisdiction has not been pr operly invoked, the appe als are dismiss ed.

__________________________________________ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Jul y

18, 2007 Pub lis h