Court Opinion

ID: 9608688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:15:52.413675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:37.906184
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, J.,
delivered this dissenting opinion.
I join Judge Johnson’s opinion. The State Prosecuting Attorney (SPA) does not have standing to prosecute this discretionary review appeal concerning an El Paso city ordinance.
It doesn’t matter that the parties have not addressed the issue. Standing should be assessed as a threshold matter:
One of the most fundamental tenants of appellate law ... is the requirement that a party have standing to raise an issue before an appellate court. When challenging the constitutionality of a statute, it is incumbent upon the party raising the issue to show that it is unconstitutional as to him in his situation; that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others is not significant. To establish standing, the party must show that he is injured, or that his rights are abrogated in the application of the alleged unconstitutional statute.
Thus, in Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), before any discussion was had as to separation of powers, this Court properly determined the threshold issue of the Freestone County attorney’s standing to complain....
*478Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 558 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (McCormick, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).
Nearly all of the cases in criminal law jurisprudence involving standing are search and seizure cases in which the defendant’s subjective privacy interests in the place searched or the items seized are in question. In that context, the question of standing is so intertwined with the personal nature of Fourth Amendment rights that it is considered an element of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim, and therefore its absence may be raised by the State for the first time on appeal. State v. Klima, 934 S.W.2d 109, 111 (Tex.Crim. App.1996). We have further recognized:
[t]he reviewing court may properly sustain the trial court’s denial on the ground that the evidence failed to establish standing as a matter of law, even though the record does not reflect that the issue was ever considered by the parties or the trial court.
Wilson v. State, 692 S.W.2d 661, 671 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (opinion on rehearing). However, the State is not allowed to raise a question of the defendant’s standing (in the Fourth Amendment context) for the first time on discretionary review. The reason being that this Court does not address, on discretionary review, any issues not addressed and decided by the Court of Appeals:
In the instant cáse, the State did not present the issue of standing to the Court of Appeals as an independent ground for upholding the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not decide whether appellant had standing to complain of any search or seizure violation. Without a decision by the Court of Appeals on that issue, this Court has nothing to accept for review regarding appellant’s standing. Therefore, we find that the State has waived the right to challenge appellant’s standing to complain....
Angel v. State, 740 S.W.2d 727, 730 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).
The standing issue here is quite different from the typical Fourth Amendment standing cases where the issue of the defendant’s standing should be raised before and addressed initially by the Court of Appeals. The SPA is the complaining party before this Court. The question of the SPA’s standing was not addressed by the Court of Appeals because the SPA was not a party before that court. Thus, the standing issue did not arise until the SPA filed its petition with this Court. Since it could not have been addressed by the Court of Appeals, we are not constrained by our review jurisdiction. We may address the issue with the same authority we have to address our own jurisdiction.
With these comments, I join Judge Johnson’s opinion.
MANSFIELD J„
delivered the dissenting opinion.
I agree with the opinion of the Court, affirming the judgment of the court of appeals. Clearly, a culpable mental state is required in a municipal ordinance that purports to regulate adult businesses and treats violations of said ordinance as a criminal offense. See Tex. Penal Code, §§ 1.03 and 6.02. I am troubled, however, with the concept of creating criminal offenses through laws that are, at heart, regulations on the use of property, i.e., zoning ordinances. It is especially troublesome and potentially dangerousness where the motivation behind such laws is to criminalize activities deemed “politically incorrect,” such as topless dancing.1
However, I also agree with the dissent that Texas Government Code §§ 42.001 and 42.005 do not allow the State Prosecuting Attorney to represent a municipali*479ty before this Court, either on his own or on behalf of the municipality’s attorney. Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition of the State Prosecuting Attorney on the ground that he lacks standing and join Judge Johnson’s dissenting opinion.
PRICE, J.,
delivered a dissenting opinion.
I respectfully dissent. This case should be dismissed as improvidently granted because it raises a related issue that complicates this case and in my view prevents us from reaching the merits of the grounds for review we originally granted.
We granted the state’s petition for discretionary review on the following grounds:
1. What is the proper analysis for determining whether an ordinance plainly dispenses with any mental element within the meaning of Texas Penal Code § 6.02(b) where the plain language of the ordinance does not require a culpable mental state.
2. Is an ordinance that does not require a culpable mental state and that prohibits, as a land use control, the operation of a nude live entertainment club within 1,000 feet of certain establishments, (e.g.churches, schools), a malum prohibitum provision imposing strict liability?
Unfortunately, ground one as formulated, presumes that § 6.02(b) applies to municipal ordinances. The briefs of the parties also make the same presumption. Consequently, we do not have the benefit of scholarly discussion by either party regarding this issue. The majority avers that § 6.02 applies to municipal ordinances based on our holding in Honeycutt v. State, 627 S.W.2d 417 (Tx.Crim.App.1982) and the phrase “other laws” found in section 1.03(b) of the Penal Code. Ante, at 470. I am not convinced that this question is so easily settled. First, the majority’s interpretation of the phrase “other laws” is not supported by a reading of § 1.03(b) in its entirety. The phrase, “ other laws” is immediately followed by the phrase, “unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise.” Arguably, then, the phrase “other laws” refers not to municipal ordinances, but rather statutes defining offenses that are found outside of the penal code. See e.g. Tex. Pahks & Wildlife Code ANN. §§ 47.0183(b), 66.019(c), 66.021(c); Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 153.404(a), Tex. Water Code Ann. § 7.147(b).
Second, a thorough reading of Honey-cutt reveals that it has little if any relevance to the issues present in this case. The city ordinance at issue in Honeycutt defined the offense in terms of a culpable mental state of negligence, a culpability distinct from each of the four established in § 6.02 of the Penal Code. The complaint alleged the offense in the same terms, omitting any culpable mental state required by § 6.02. We reasoned that because the ordinance did not include one of the four culpable mental states in the definition of negligent collision and because the definition of negligent collision also did not plainly dispense with any culpable mental state, it was in fact attempting to apply a new culpable mental state not created by the penal code. We held that the term “statute” as used in section 1.03(b) of the penal code refers to enactments of the legislature, and was intended to reserve to the legislature the power to define offenses in abrogation of the provisions of Titles 1, 2 and 3 of the Code, which include the culpable mental state requirements of § 6.02. We reached this conclusion by noting that to hold otherwise would mean that a municipal ordinance could create an offense establishing criminal liability irrespective of the existence of any such legislatively codified general rules of culpability, defenses and justifications. Id.
While the present case also involves a municipal ordinance, this is where the similarities end. Rather than creating a culpable mental state outside the penal code, *480here the El Paso city ordinance is silent as to a culpable mental state. Consequently, the only guidance we can glean from Ho-neycutt, is that at the very least, a municipal ordinance must contain one of the culpable mental states authorized by § 6.02(a). This case however, raises the question of whether the drafters of § 6.02 could have intended that municipalities enact strict liability offenses. The majority’s analysis of this question is inadequate. While it is true that the Honeycutt Court did rely at least partially on the fact that the negligent collision ordinance did not plainly dispense with a culpable mental state in order to hold the ordinance void, this aspect of that decision appears to have been given only cursory attention (one sentence). Therefore, before we rely on Ho-neycutt as precedential authority allowing municipalities to draft strict liability offenses, a more thorough look at the issue would be wise.
Because the grounds for review and the briefs of the parties filed in this case do not adequately encompass the actual issue raised, I would dismiss the petition as improvidently granted. See Tex.R.App. P. 69.8.
JOHNSON, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion, in which MEYERS and MANSFIELD, J.J., joined.
I respectfully dissent. Appellant was convicted, in the El Paso municipal court, of violating El Paso, Tex., City Code § 20.08.080. She appealed to the El Paso Municipal Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction. She then appealed to the 8th Court of Appeals in El Paso, which reversed the conviction. Aguirre v. State, 978 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1998, pet. granted).
The record shows that at all times during the prosecution of the case and of the appeal, through the proceedings in the El Paso Court of Appeals, the case was handled exclusively by the office of the El Paso city prosecutor, represented by Herb Fleming. However, the petition for discretionary review was filed with this Court solely by the State Prosecuting Attorney; the office of the El Paso city prosecutor played no part in the appeal to this Court.
The office of the State Prosecuting Attorney is created by statute1 and therefore has only the specific authority and standing granted to it by the Legislature. The limits of that statutory grant are set out in Tex. Gov’t Code chapter 42, which provides:
§ 42.001. Office; Qualifications
(a) The court of criminal appeals shall appoint a state prosecuting attorney to represent the state in all proceedings before the court. The state prosecuting attorney may also represent the state in any stage of a criminal case before a state court of appeals if he considers it necessary for the interest of the state.
[[Image here]]
§ 42.002. Oath; Term
[[Image here]]
§ 42.003. Assistant State Prosecuting Attorneys
[[Image here]]
42.004. Removal
[[Image here]]
§ 42.005. Cooperation with Other Prosecuting Attorneys
(a) The state prosecuting attorney may assist a district or a county attorney in representing the state before a court of appeals if requested to do so by the district or county attorney,
(b) A district or county attorney may assist the state prosecuting attorney in representing the state before the court of criminal appeals.
§ 42.006. Sunset Provision
*481[[Image here]]
(Emphases added.)
Thus, § 42.005 specifically provides for a relationship of representation between the State Prosecuting Attorney and district and county attorneys, but excludes city attorneys. Under our approach to statutory interpretation, we look to the literal text of the statute for its meaning, and we ordinarily give effect to that plain meaning, unless application of the statute’s plain language would lead to absurd consequences that the Legislature could not possibly have intended, or if the plain language is ambiguous. Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Pursuant to this approach to statutory interpretation and to the legal maxim, “Ex-pressio unius est exclusio alterius” (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another), § 42.005 must be interpreted to mean that the legislature did not intend for the State Prosecuting Attorney to represent a city attorney in the Court of Criminal Appeals. This interpretation of § 42.005 is consistent with § 42.001, which provides in relevant part that “[t]he court of criminal appeals shall appoint a state prosecuting attorney to represent the state in all proceedings before the court.” (Emphasis added.) The plain language of § 42.005 is unambiguous. Applying the plain language to exclude city prosecutors does not to lead to “absurd” results; the kinds of offenses prosecuted only at the municipal level do not affect areas outside of that municipality and so do not impact “the interest of the state” as stated in § 42.001.
The instant case involves an El Paso city zoning ordinance.2 The contention that the State Prosecuting Attorney lacks standing is further supported by a provision of the El Paso Courts Act which requires that “all appeals from convictions in the municipal court of record must be prosecuted in the appellate court, the court of appeals, and the court of criminal appeals by the city attorney or an assistant city attorney.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 30.00145 (emphasis added). The Act therefore bars the State Prosecuting Attorney from prosecuting this case before this Court, as it specifically requires that the city attorney, not the State Prosecuting Attorney, prosecute all appeals in this court. The State Prosecuting Attorney’s authority to represent the state before this court, and any limitations on that authority, are determined solely by the legislature. Therefore, it cannot be said that other statutes passed by the legislature which limit that authority “usurp” it. What the legislature gives, it may take away or limit.
The majority attempts to rationalize its assertion that the State Prosecuting Attorney has standing to bring this appeal by engaging in a lengthy historical discourse. Ante, at 466 - 471. Such an historical “appreciation,” however, conflicts with our approach to statutory interpretation. As noted above, the literal text of the statutes is not ambiguous and does not lead to an absurd result that the legislature could not have intended; legislative history is therefore irrelevant. See Boykin, 818 S.W.2d at 785. Furthermore, the legislative history cited by the majority, which dates back to the late 1800s, is less relevant and the literal text of the contemporary statutes is more relevant, given the following: (1) the office of the State Prosecuting Attorney, as we know it, did not exist until 1923;3 (2) the texts of the various statutes concerning the State Prosecuting Attorney *482have changed considerably over the years, the last major change in substance occurring in 1981;4 and' (3) the current version of the El Paso Courts Act came into existence in 1983,5 two years after the current form of the State Prosecuting Attorney’s authority was delineated.6
Therefore I conclude that, pursuant to the legislature’s limited statutory grant of authority and the further limitations of the El Paso Courts Act, the State Prosecuting Attorney is not authorized to represent the City of El Paso before this Court in the instant case. This petition should be dismissed because the State Prosecuting Attorney lacks standing to bring this appeal, and because the City Attorney, the only authorized representative of the City of El Paso, chose not to appeal to this Court. See Tex.R.App. P. 69.3.
Because I believe that we should not reach the merits of this appeal but should dismiss the petition for lack of standing, I dissent.

. In my opinion, regulation of activities like adult entertainment businesses is best left to civil, not criminal, statutes.

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. chap. 42 (Vernon 1988 & Supp.1999).

. This offense is neither found in the Penal Code nor created by the legislature, and does not regulate the same subject matter as a state law.

. See Act of March 30, 1923, 38 ⅛ Leg., R.S., ch. 156, §§ 1 & 2, 1923 Tex. Gen. Laws 335, 335 (providing for appointment of "an attorney for the State before the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas” and "an assistant to the attorney for the State before the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas”). These sections replaced laws which provided for the appointment and payment of an Assistant Attorney General. See Tex.Rev.Civ. Stats., tit. 65, ch. 5, art. 4432 & tit. 120, ch. 3, art. 7060 (1911).

. See Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 42.001-42.006; Act of May 31, 1981, 67 ⅛ Leg., R.S., ch. 291, § 30, 1981 Tex. Gen. Laws 761, 776; Act of May 12, 1977, 65 ⅛ Leg., R.S., ch. 256, § 1, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 675, 675; Act of May 25, 1973, 63 Leg., R.S., ch. 498, § 1, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1328, 1328-1329; Act of May 18, 1931, 42 nd Leg., R.S., ch. 139, § 1, 1931 Tex. Gen. Laws 234, 234-235; Act of March 30, 1923, 38 ⅛ Leg., R.S., ch. 156, 1923 Tex. Gen. Laws 335, 335.

. The initial version was passed in 1979, then repealed by and replaced with the current statute in 1983. See Act of May 27, 1979, 66 ⅛ Leg., R.S., ch. 410, §§ 1-32, 1979 Tex. Gen. Laws 893, 893-900 ("City of El Paso Municipal Courts”), repealed by Act of May 20, 1983, 68» Leg., R.S., ch. 685, §§ 1-4, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 4290, 4290-4316 ("El Paso Courts Act”).

. See Act of May 20, 1983, 68 th Leg., R.S., ch. 685, §§ 1-4, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 4290, 4290-4316; Act of May 31, 1981, 67‘h Leg., R.S., ch. 291, § 30, 1981 Tex. Gen. Laws 761, 776.
Although the legislature has subsequently made changes to the provisions granting authority to the State Prosecuting Attorney, the changes are of form, rather than substance. See Tex Gov’t Code §§ 42.001-42.006 (Act of May 17, 1985, 69 th Leg., R.S., ch. 480, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 1720, 1921-1922); Act of May 31, 1981, 67 ⅛ Leg., R.S., ch. 291, § 30, 1981 Tex. Gen. Laws 761, 776.