Court Opinion

ID: 9662037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:57:44.454107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:36.088816
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Judge,
dissenting.
I join in the dissenting opinion of my Brother Judge Roberts. I further dissent on the basis of our own State Constitution. It is unquestioned that the Legislature has the power to prescribe jurisdictional modifications under Article Y, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution. However, that power is simultaneously circumscribed by the provisions of Article I, Section 3 of our Constitution which provide, in pertinent part:
“All free men . . . have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments or privileges . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
The inevitable result of Article 1200cc is that a particular set of men is accorded a
*488particular privilege unavailable to others within the same jurisdiction. That is to say that all the Class C misdemeanants in Houston who enjoy the fortuitous circumstance of having their case filed in a justice court will have the privilege of a trial de novo upon appeal to the county court. On the other hand, those Class C misdemeanants who find their cases filed in the municipal courts of Houston will be relegated to an appellate determination of their cases on the basis of the cold record created, without the assistance of counsel, unless hired specifically by the appellant. See Empy v. State, 571 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Article 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. It appears then that the nature of appellate review that a Class C misdemeanant receives is ultimately determined by the discretion of the filing police officer. This type of discretion would seem to offend against the concept that the ultimate distinctions reached between individuals of the same class not be based on an arbitrary or capricious standard, but have some rational basis. Although the above discussion is related solely to Class C misdemeanants, it would have equal applicability to convictions for violations of municipal code ordinances under Hickman v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 125, 183 S.W. 1180 (Tex.Crim.App.1916). Thus, I dissent on the further grounds that this statute violates Article I, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution.