Opinion filed October 24 , 2013



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 12

- 00026

- CV

__________
SCOTT MATTISON LAWSON , Appellant
V.
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ET AL

. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 250 th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 11

- 002913

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial court granted a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Scott
Mattison Lawson ’s suit for declaratory judgment that he filed against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ; the p residing j udge of that court , Sharon Keller ; and
some of the other Texas Court of Criminal Appeals j udges : Barbara P. Hervey, Mike Keasler, Charles R. Holcomb
, and Cathy Cochran . Because we agree with the trial court that immunity bars Appellant’s suit, we affirm.2 I. Issue Presented Appellant presents the following question on appeal : Did the trial court err when it granted Appellees ’ plea to the jurisdiction?
II. Background Facts
Before Appellant filed this civil lawsuit, he was convicted of felony murder

. The Amarillo Court of Appeals and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed
that conviction. Lawson v. State , 26 S.W.3d 920, 921

– 22 (Tex. App

. — Amarillo 2000) , aff’d
, 64 S.W.3d 396, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Appellant alleged in his declaratory judgment action that the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the named judges, violated his constitutional rights and committed reversible error when they refused to abide by their own court precedent and affirmed his murder conviction. Appellees responded with a plea to the j urisdiction

. Appellees alleged that Appellant’s claims are barred by sovereign
and judicial immunity and that the Declaratory Judgment Act has no application to
criminal cases

. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 37.001

– .011 (West 2008). After it held a hearing by telephone conference, t he trial court granted Appellees’ plea to the juris diction and dismissed the case.
III. Standard of Review Because subject

- matter jurisdiction is a question of law, w e review a trial
court’s decision on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). We may review the entire
record to determine if the facts support jurisdiction in the trial court. Bland Indep.
Sch. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W.3d 547, 554

– 55 (Tex. 2000). A judgment may be
reversed o nly for error that probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or probably prevented an appellant from presenting his appeal. T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 44.1(a)

.3 IV. Analysis Sovereign immunity deprives a trial court of subject

- matter jurisdiction and may be properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. Tex

. Dep ’ t of Parks & Wildlife , 133 S.W.3d at 226

– 27. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity
, the
State of Texas and its officials are protected from suit unless immunity has been specifically waived by the legislature by clear and unambiguous language. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 311.034 ( West 2013 ); Dallas Cnt y . Mental Health & Mental
Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1998)

. Sovereign immunity provides immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Fed. Sign v. Tex. S.
Univ. , 951 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex. 1997)

. A judge is entitled to judicial immunity from liability for judicial acts performed in his official capacity and within the scope of his jurisdiction. Dallas
Cnt y

. v. Halsey
, 87 S.W.3d 55 2 , 554 (Tex. 2002) ( citing Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 356

– 57 (1978) )

. To determine whether a judge is protected by judicial immunity , the inquiry is whether he had jurisdiction over the subject ma tter of the challenged action. Stump , 435 U.S. at 356. “ A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of hi s authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Id. at 356

– 57 ( quoting Bradley v. Fisher
, 80 U.S. 335, 351 ( 1871) )

. Appellees properly asserted both sovereign and judicial immunity in their plea to the jurisdiction. Appellees , as officials of the State of Texas, may claim sovereign immunity , and Appellant has not shown a valid waiver of that immunity. Appellees are also entitled to judicial immunity, as their decision to affirm Appellant’s murder conviction constituted judicial action that fell within the scope
of their jurisdiction as judg es of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

.4 Appellees’ immunity deprived the trial court of subject

- matter jurisdiction and properly resulted in the dismissal of Appellant’s suit. See Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas , 197 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex. 2006). Because we hold that Appellees are protected by sovereign and judicial immunity as a matter of law, w e need not address Appellees’ addit ional contention that the Declaratory Judgment Act has no application to criminal ca ses. Appellant’s sole issue on appeal is
overruled.
V. This Court’s Ruling We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MIKE WILLSON
JUSTICE

October 24 , 2013 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J.