Court Opinion

ID: 9890740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-15 07:15:04.399124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:12.055789
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 12, 2023.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-22-00708-CV

               RANDY BRAST AND RYAN BRAST, Appellants
                                          V.
   DAVID BRAST, JANET BRAST, AND MATTHEW BRAST, Appellees

                    On Appeal from the County Court at Law
                             Austin County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 22CV-6299

                                     OPINION

      Appellants Randy Brast (“Randy”) and Ryan Brast (“Ryan”) appeal a
protective order entered in favor of appellees David Brast (“David”), Janet Brast
(“Janet”), and Matthew Brast (“Matthew”). In two issues, Randy and Ryan argue
that (1) the trial court’s finding of family violence was erroneous because the actions
were justified under Texas Penal Code § 9.41(b) and (2) Texas Family Code
§ 85.022(b)(6)’s prohibition of the possession of firearms is unconstitutional both
facially and as applied to Randy and Ryan. We affirm.
                                     I.    BACKGROUND

       David and Randy are brothers and neighbors, and Ryan is Randy’s son. David
and his wife, Janet, and on behalf of their son Matthew, sought a protective order
from Randy and Ryan for a minimum of two years, arguing that they were in grave
fear of serious bodily injury.1 Appellees asked that the trial court prohibit Randy and
Ryan from possessing a firearm during the term of the protective order.

       At a hearing on appellees’ motion for a protective order, the trial court heard
testimony from David, Janet, Ryan, and Ryan’s friend Grayson Moody (“Moody”)
about an altercation that arose over a dog on March 27, 2022. The dog, which Randy
said was a stray and then Ryan claimed belonged to them, wandered onto David’s
property. David said that he was going to shoot it or haul it off before picking the
dog up and taking it inside his home. When Randy and Ryan trespassed onto David’s
property to retrieve the dog, the men “got into a scuffle.” David testified that Randy
and Ryan hit him. Randy and Ryan claimed that they were defending their property
when they trespassed onto David’s property to retrieve the dog.

       For the next four days, Randy and Ryan fired firearms outside of their property
and adjacent to David’s property, including after midnight. David testified that on
the third day, one of the men drove his truck to the side of the property line with
David, rolled down his window, and fired gunshots into the ground while facing in
David’s direction. Finally, David testified that he feared for his life and he feared
Randy and Ryan will “come in [and] kill me one night or one evening—me and my
family.” Janet also testified that she feared for her and her family’s life during the
events of March 27 and in the future.

       1
         The record only includes appellees’ application for an ex parte protective order and does
not contain appellees’ application for a protective order. Appellees’ counsel noted the existence of
a pleading requesting a protective order filed June 7, 2022.

                                                 2
       Grayson testified about the scuffle and about ownership of the dog that led to
the incident, confirming that he had given the dog as a puppy to Randy’s daughter.
When Ryan testified, he denied striking his uncle David, threatening David or his
son, or later discharging a firearm in the middle of the night. Instead, he claimed that
on March 27 he was only retrieving his family dog after David threatened repeatedly
to shoot it.

       On July 8, 2022, the trial court entered two protective orders for a term of one
year against Randy and Ryan, protecting David, Janet, and Matthew from Randy and
Ryan and prohibiting Randy and Ryan from possessing firearms or ammunition.
Randy and Ryan filed a motion for new trial arguing that they did not commit family
violence because they were defending their property and that the prohibition on their
ability to possess firearms and ammunition was unconstitutional and violated their
Second Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

                                 II.   MOOTNESS

       We first address the issue of mootness, which we raise sua sponte. See M.O.
Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) (“[W]e are
obligated to review sua sponte issues affecting jurisdiction.”). The protective orders
here expired on July 8, 2023.

       Generally, mootness defeats a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a
particular controversy. See Messier v. Messier, 458 S.W.3d 155, 161 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.); Robinson v. Alief Indep. Sch. Dist., 298 S.W.3d
321, 324 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (“The mootness
doctrine precludes a court from rendering an advisory opinion in a case where there
is no live controversy.”); Thompson v. Ricardo, 269 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (“[I]f a judgment cannot have a practical effect
on an existing controversy, the case is moot and any opinion issued on the merits in

                                           3
the appeal would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.”). A case becomes
moot when the issues presented are no longer “live”—that is, a justiciable
controversy no longer exists between the parties or the parties no longer have a
legally cognizable interest in the case’s outcome. Glassdoor, Inc. v. Andra Grp., LP,
575 S.W.3d 523, 527 (Tex. 2019); see In re Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d
372, 379 (Tex. 2022). But a case is not made moot merely because some issues
became moot during the appeal; that is, if only some claims or issues become moot,
the case remains live for the claims or issues that are not moot. State ex rel. Best v.
Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. 2018).

      There are two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the capable of
repetition yet escaping review exception and (2) the collateral consequences
exception. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.
1994) (citing Gen. Land Off. of State of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569,
571 (Tex. 1990)). We have previously concluded that the collateral consequences
exception applies to the findings necessary to enter a protective order based on
family violence. Dolgener v. Dolgener, 651 S.W.3d 242, 254–55 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (“[U]nder the collateral-consequences exception,
an expired protective order based on a finding of family violence is reviewable
because the ‘effects of a protective order carry significant collateral legal
repercussions. . . .”); see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.004(f) (mandating that a trial
court must consider the issuance of protective order under Chapter 85, Title 4 of the
Family Code in determining child custody); Martin, 545 S.W.3d at 167; see also In
re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230, 234 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam). Thus, we conclude that
appellants’ first issue challenging the finding of family violence needed for a
protective order under the family code is excepted from the mootness doctrine. See
Dolgener, 651 S.W.3d at 254–55.

                                          4
       Appellants’ second issue concerns an expired prohibition on their ability to
possess firearms included in the protective order. This prohibition is a discretionary
condition that the trial court may include in a protective order when it has found
that family violence has occurred and is likely to occur in the future.2 See Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. §§ 85.001, 85.022(b)(6). However, the existence of this expired
prohibition does not carry significant collateral legal repercussions. Cf. Dolgener,
651 S.W.3d at 254–55. Thus, we must consider whether this prohibition on the
possession of firearms is subject to the second exception—that is, that it is capable
of repetition yet would escape judicial review. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
U.S. 95, 109 (1983) (“[T]he capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in
exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a
reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality.”); Tex.
A&M Univ.-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289, 290–91 (Tex. 2011)
(“‘Capable of repetition yet evading review’ is a rare exception to the mootness
doctrine.” (quoting Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001))).

       This exception has two requirements: (1) that the challenged action was too
short to be fully litigated before the action ceased or expired 3 and (2) that a
reasonable expectation exists that the same party will be subjected to the same action
again. Pressley v. Casar, 567 S.W.3d 327, 331 (Tex. 2019) (citing Williams, 52
S.W.3d at 184). We focus our attention on the second requirement.

       2
          Effective September 1, 2023, the Legislature amended Texas Family Code § 85.001 to
remove the requirement that the trial court find family violence is likely to occur in the future, in
addition to a finding that family violence has occurred, in order to enter a protective order. Act of
May 24, 2023 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 688 §§ 1, 2. The citations in this opinion refer to the prior version
of the statute.
       3
         We note that a protective order under Chapter 85 of the Texas Family Code is generally
for a duration no longer than two years. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 85.025. If certain findings are
made, then a trial court may enter a protective order for a term longer than two years that is
“sufficient to protect the applicant.” See id. § 85.025(a-1).

                                                  5
      Here, there is nothing in the record supporting a conclusion that there is a
reasonable expectation that Randy and Ryan will be subjected to the same
prohibition from possessing firearms. See Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d at 291 (“Nor is
there evidence that Yarbrough will receive subsequent negative evaluations that she
may wish to grieve.”); Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184–85 (holding that inmates did not
satisfy the capable-of-repetition requirement because “[w]hether and when [they]
may be charged with a crime that would lead to their incarceration . . . is
speculative”); cf. Blum v. Lanier, 997 S.W.3d 259, 264 (Tex. 1999) (“If the trial
court orders a new charter amendment election, as it has indicated it will, Blum or
any other signatory to the petition may seek to enjoy the City from the proceeding
with a ballot proposition that allegedly misleads the electorate about this proposed
amendment.”); In re Cornyn, 27 S.W.3d 327, 332 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2000, orig. proceeding) (noting that relators would face similar orders in the
immediate future because the trial court “had scheduled another contempt hearing
and a temporary-injunction hearing that were actively pursued until our stay
issued”); see also In re Uresti, 377 S.W.3d 696, 696–97 (Tex. 2012) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (“But Uresti has not shown a reasonable expectation that
he will be subjected to the same action again.”). Thus, we conclude that appellant’s
second issue is moot.

                         III.    FINDING OF FAMILY VIOLENCE

      In their first issue, Randy and Ryan argue that the trial court’s finding of
family violence was erroneous because the actions were justified under Texas Penal
Code § 9.41(b), concerning actions taken in the defense of property. 4

      4
          Section 9.41 subsection (b) sates:

      A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another
      is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor
                                               6
       “Family violence” necessary for a protective order under the Family Code is
defined as:

       (1) an act by a member of a family or household against another
       member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical
       harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that
       reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm,
       bodily injury, assault or sexual assault, but does not include defensive
       measures to protect oneself;
       (2) abuse, as that term is defined by [§] 261.001(1)(C), (E), (G), (H),
       (I), (J), (K), and (M), by a member of a family or household toward a
       child of the family or household; or
       (3) dating violence, as that term is defined by [§] 71.0021.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.004 (emphasis added); see Boyd v. Palmore, 425 S.W.3d
425, 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see also Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. §§ 71.003 (defining “family”), 71.005 (defining “household”).

       Generally, we review the trial court’s finding in a protective order proceeding
that family violence has occurred and is likely to occur in the future for legal and
factual sufficiency. Fontenot v. Fontenot, 667 S.W.3d 894, 914 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, no pet.); Dolgener, 651 S.W.3d at 256. Randy and Ryan,
however, do not specifically challenge the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings
nor do they present the applicable standard of review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i)
(“The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made,

       reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or
       recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after
       the dispossession and:
              (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he
              dispossessed the actor; or
              (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud
              against the actor.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.41(b).

                                                 7
with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”). Rather, Randy and Ryan
argue that their actions “should not be deemed to be family violence because their
violence on March 27, 2022[,] was authorized as defense of property” under Texas
Penal Code § 9.41(b). Whether acts in the defense of property can be “family
violence” for purposes of a protective order under the Texas Family Code is a
question of first impression.

      We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Pedernal Energy,
LLC. v. Bruington Eng’g, Ltd., 536 S.W.3d 487, 491 (Tex. 2017); Molinet v.
Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. 2011). Our primary objective in construing
statutes is to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Molinet, 356 S.W.3d at 411. The
plain meaning of the text is the best expression of legislative intent. Id.

      We read statutes contextually to give effect to every word, clause, and
sentence because every word or phrase is presumed to have been intentionally used
with a meaning and a purpose. Rodriguez, 547 S.W.3d at 838; see Lippincott v.
Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam) (“We presume the
Legislature included each word in the statute for a purpose and that words not
included were purposefully omitted.”). We use definitions prescribed by the
Legislature and any technical or particular meaning the words have acquired. See
Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.011(b); Rodriguez, 547 S.W.3d at 838; City of Rockwall
v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008).

      The plain language of the statute provides that acts in self defense are not
family violence, but it contains no similar provision concerning the defense of
property. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.004(1); Lippincott, 462 S.W.3d at 509.
Thus, we conclude that actions in the defense of property do not preclude a finding
of family violence as necessary for a protective order under the Family Code and
reject appellants’ argument. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 71.004(1), 81.001;

                                           8
85.001(a); Lippincott, 462 S.W.3d at 509; Molinet, 356 S.W.3d at 411.

      We overrule appellants’ first issue.

                              IV.    CONCLUSION

      The trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                       /s/       Margaret “Meg” Poissant
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.

                                             9