Court Opinion

ID: 9761924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:00:07.816558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:50.835016
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice,
dissenting.
Must a court reporter prepare and file a free reporter’s record if the trial court does not find that an indigent’s appeal is frivolous under section 13.003 within the time prescribed by Rule 20.1(i), Tex.R.App.P., for ruling on a contest to an affidavit of indigence? The majority holds it must. But importing the Rule 20.1 contest deadline into section 13.003 is not mandated by the text of section 13.003 or its underlying legislative history; it is not required by Rule 20.1(i) or its underlying legislative history; and it has not been adopted in any published opinion. There simply is no authority — binding or persuasive — supporting the majority’s holding.
Because no authority supports its decision, the majority purports to base its holding on “the well-established rule of statutory construction known as in pari materia .... ” Click v. Tyra, 867 S.W.2d 406, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, orig. proceeding). Under this rule, “[t]he object is to ascertain the consistent purpose of the Legislature in the enactment of laws, and to carry out the legislative intent, by giving effect to all laws bearing upon the same subject, although enacted at different sessions of the Legislature.” Wintermann v. McDonald, 129 Tex. 275, 102 S.W.2d 167, 171 (1937); see Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023(4) (Vernon 1988) (codifying common law rule of construction). The doctrine thus mandates harmonization in the event of an actual or potential conflict. See, e.g., Click, 867 S.W.2d at 407-09. In Click, for instance, the court rejected the district clerk’s argument that section 51.318 of the Texas Government Code entitled her to advance payment for preparing a clerk’s record because the appellant’s appeal bond filed pursuant to former Rule 46(b), Tex.R.App. P., was intended to cover this cost. See Click, 867 S.W.2d at 407-09. To construe the rule as the clerk argued would thus create a conflict between section 51.318 and former Rule 46(b) in contravention of the rule of in pari materia. Id.
Conversely, if there is no actual or potential conflict, “harmonization” is not required, and the court is required to give effect to the provisions of both statutes. See, e.g., Reed v. State Dept. of Licensing & Regulation, 820 S.W.2d 1, 2-3 (Tex.App.—Austin 1991, no writ). Therefore, the Reed court looked first at whether there was a conflict between the statute requiring a litigant to file a motion for rehearing in the administrative agency as a prerequisite to judicial review and another statute covering similar subject matter but failing to mention the motion for rehearing requirement. Discerning no conflict, the court simply enforced the motion for rehearing requirement. Id.
*735In short, the rule of in pari materia requires “harmonization” only if there is an actual or potential conflict. See, e.g., Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Schaejbe, 687 S.W.2d 727, 728 (Tex.1985) (“When an apparent conflict exists, it is the duty of the courts to resolve inconsistencies and effectuate the dominant legislative intent.”); Frizzell v. Cook, 790 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990, writ denied) (“The courts must make every effort to harmonize inconsistent provisions, if any, in the statutes.”); Breeding v. State, 762 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex.App.— Amarillo 1988, pet. ref d) (“ ‘Any conflict between ... provisions [in enactments that are in pari materia ] will be harmonized, if possible, and effect will be given to all the provisions of each act if they can be made to stand together and have concurrent efficacy.’ ”) (quoting 58 Tex.Jur.2d Statutes § 186 (1964)). Absent an actual or potential conflict, the rule of in pari materia does not permit a court to rewrite a rule or statute because to do so would violate the rule prohibiting “Dflnterpretation by implication,” which is “permitted only to supply obvious intent not expressly stated, and never to contradict nor add to a statute.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United North & South Dev. Co., 140 Tex. 417, 168 S.W.2d 226, 229 (1942).
The majority’s reliance on the rule of in pari materia is thus misplaced in this case since there is no actual or potential conflict between section 13.003’s failing to provide a deadline for the findings it requires and Rule 20.1’s providing a deadline for rulings on contests. But, the majority insists, the Rule 20.1 contest deadline must be applied or there is no deadline for making a section 13.003 finding. I disagree. If a deadline for making the section 13.003 findings is needed but not provided by the text of the statute, a “just and reasonable” time must be implied. Cf. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.021(3) (Vernon 1988) (requiring presumption that legislature intended “just and reasonable result” in enacting statute); State v. Shoppers World, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 107, 110-11 (Tex. 1964) (if statute omits necessary element, court to construe statute to give effect to legislative intent). Therefore, the issue in this proceeding is whether the trial court’s section 13.003 findings were made within a “just and reasonable” time.
VanDeWater does not argue the trial court’s findings were not made within a “just and reasonable” time. She simply asserts, and the majority holds, the trial court’s findings were untimely because they were not made by the Rule 20.1 contest deadline. But VanDeWater’s argument, and the majority’s holding, presage unreasonable results because they set the stage for unnecessary section 13.003 hearings and findings when events subsequent to the Rule 20.1 contest deadline preclude an appeal.
Assume, for instance, the day after a judgment is rendered against an indigent party, she files a notice of appeal, an affidavit of indigence, and a motion for new trial. Under the majority’s holding, the appellee and the reporter must obtain the section 13.003 findings long before the trial court is required to rule on the indigent party’s motion for new trial. If the trial court thereafter grants a new trial, it will moot the indigent’s planned appeal and the necessity for a reporter’s record, which will render the section 13.003 hearing and findings unnecessary. This result will plainly defeat the entire basis of section 13.003 — to require the preparation of a free reporter’s record only in cases in which it is needed to decide a nonfrivolous appeal.
But, if the Rule 20.1 contest deadline is unreasonable, what is a “just and reasonable” deadline within which the trial court must make section 13.003 findings? I believe this issue can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. Our new, more permissive rules governing the deadlines for filing a reporter’s records make it difficult to tie a deadline to a request or filing deadline, and the various deadlines for filing restricted appeals, bills of review, and collateral attacks on void judgments make it impossible to tie a deadline to a judgment date. In short, the myriad of procedural possibilities, coupled with our lack of experience with section 13.003, render it unwise, if not impossible, to adopt a hard and fast rule at this stage. For instance, I can easily foresee a case in which an indigent appellant might fail to request or file a re*736porter’s record timely but, long after the Rule 20.1 contest deadline has expired, she nonetheless becomes entitled to request the preparation of a free record, thus necessitating section 13.003 findings. Cf. Gallagher v. Fire Ins. Exch., 950 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.App.— San Antonio), rev’d, 950 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. 1997)(per curiam).
In this case, therefore, I would not adopt a deadline for making section 13.003 findings. I would simply hold that, because the trial court’s section 13.003 findings were made long before the deadline for filing the record in this court, and VanDeWater has made no showing that she has been harmed by the trial court’s failure to make the findings earlier than it did, the trial court’s section 13.003 findings were made within a “just and reasonable” time.
Adequate Remedy by Appeal
I also must take issue with the majority’s discussion of the adequacy of VanDeWater’s appellate remedy. Citing Krasniqi v. Dallas Cty. Child Protective Servs., 809 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1006, 112 S.Ct. 1763, 118 L.Ed.2d 425 (1992); 504 U.S. 940, 112 S.Ct. 2274, 119 L.Ed.2d 201 (1992), and Stine v. Koga, 790 S.W.2d 412 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1990, writ dism’d by agr.), the majority states that “[i]n the absence of a statement of facts, appellate review is generally limited to fundamental error.” In fact, however, neither of the cited opinions says any such thing. Rather, both opinions recognize that appellate review in the absence of a reporter’s record is limited to reversible error that can be demonstrated solely by reference to the clerk’s record. Krasniqi, 809 S.W.2d at 933; Stine, 790 S.W.2d at 413 (both stating that absent statement of facts, appellate review “limited generally to complaints involving (1) errors of law; (2) erroneous pleadings and rulings thereon; (3) an erroneous charge; (4) irreconcilable conflict in jury findings; (5) summary judgments; and (6) fundamental error”).
A correct analysis of the adequacy of VanDeWater’s appellate remedy necessarily yields the conclusion that the appellate remedy is adequate to redress the error of which VanDeWater complains in this mandamus proceeding — untimely section 13.003 findings — without a reporter’s record of the trial on the merits. To reach this conclusion requires only three documents from the clerk’s record — the affidavit of indigence, the first contest, and the trial court’s 13.003 findings. A review of just these three documents establishes that the trial court’s section 13.003 findings were not made by the Rule 20.1 contest deadline. Indeed, the adequacy of VanDeWater’s appellate remedy is conclusively established by the majority’s opinion in this mandamus proceeding. It is therefore transparently incorrect to say that VanDe-Water’s appellate remedy is a “useless exercise” in the absence of a reporter’s record of the trial on the merits.
Conclusion
Because the trial court’s section 13.003 findings were made within a “just and reasonable” time, and because VanDeWater’s appellate remedy is plainly adequate, the majority errs in conditionally issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the trial court to vacate its order containing the section 13.003 findings. I therefore respectfully dissent.