Case Name: Paul DEARING, Appellant, v. William C. WRIGHT, County Attorney, Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1983-06-22
Citations: 653 S.W.2d 288
Docket Number: No. C-1933
Parties: Paul DEARING, Appellant, v. William C. WRIGHT, County Attorney, Appellee.
Judges: ROBERTSON, J., concurs in an opinion in which KILGARLIN, J., joins.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 653
Pages: 288–291

Head Matter:
Paul DEARING, Appellant, v. William C. WRIGHT, County Attorney, Appellee.
No. C-1933.
Supreme Court of Texas.
June 22, 1983.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 1983.
Louis Dugas, Jr., Orange, for appellant.
James 0. Jenkins, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Stephen C. Howard, Asst. County Atty., Orange, for appellee.

Opinion:
BARROW, Justice.
This is a direct appeal from an order denying Paul Dearing, appellant, a temporary injunction to bar his prosecution for possession of marijuana. In denying the injunction, the trial court held that the 1981 amendments to the Texas Controlled Substances Act, article 4476-15 are constitutional. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Dearing is under indictment for possession of marijuana. He initiated this proceeding by filing a petition for injunction against William C. Wright, County Attorney for Orange County, to enjoin his criminal prosecution on the grounds that the caption to the 1981 bill amending the Texas Controlled Substances Act was insufficient to apprise the legislature and public of the drastic changes in the Act and that the Act, as amended, was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the injunction, concluding that the bill amending the Act was constitutional.
Dearing seeks to appeal to this Court under article V, section 3-b of the Texas Constitution and article 1738a, which allow appeal directly to the Supreme Court from an order of any trial court granting or denying an injunction on the grounds of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of any statute of this state.
Article V, section 3 of the Texas Constitution, as amended in 1980, provides that our appellate jurisdiction "shall extend to all cases except in criminal law matters . " Only the courts of appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeals may exercise appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. Tex. Const, art. V, § 5.
Under our dual appellate system, we must concede to those courts the exclusive jurisdictional prerogative in criminal law matters our constitution requires that they exercise. See Pope v. Ferguson, 445 S.W.2d 950, 956 (Tex.1969); Morrow v. Corbin, 122 Tex. 553, 62 S.W.2d 641, 644-45 (1933). The constitutionality of the Texas Controlled Substances Act is presently pending before the Court of Criminal Appeals in three other causes. By refraining from interfering with the appellate process in criminal matters, we will eliminate the possibility of conflicting holdings on the validity of such statutes. Cf. Barnes v. State, 75 Tex.Cr. 188, 170 S.W. 548, 553-54 (1914); Tex. Const, art. V, § 5, interpretive commentary.
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
ROBERTSON, J., concurs in an opinion in which KILGARLIN, J., joins.
. All statutory references are to Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated.
. Dearing failed to allege that enforcement of the statute would result in irreparable injury to any vested property rights. The rule is well settled that a court of equity will not enjoin enforcement of a criminal law unless the law is unconstitutional and enforcement will result in irreparable injury to vested property rights. City of Richardson v. Kaplan, 438 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.1969); City of Fort Worth v. Craik, 411 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.1967); State v. Logue, 376 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.1964); Crouch v. Craik, 369 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.1963).
. See Ex parte Muniz, 655 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, pet. granted); Bass v. State, 636 S.W.2d 781 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1982, pet. granted); Ex parte Crisp, 643 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.App.—Austin 1982, pet. granted).