Billy Wayne Wass v. State ( 2017 )

DISMISSED; Opinion Filed August 1, 2017.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00649-CR
BILLY WAYNE WASS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 001-81326-2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Evans
Opinion by Justice Evans
Billy Wayne Wass appeals the county court at law’s judgment, affirming his conviction
in municipal court. We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On January 10, 2017, the municipal court of the City of McKinney convicted appellant of
speeding and assessed a $71 fine. Appellant appealed his conviction to the County Court at Law
No. 1 in Collin County. On April 17, 2017, that court found appellant guilty of speeding and
assessed a $50 fine. Appellant then filed his appeal with this Court. The complete record has
been filed.
This Court has jurisdiction to provide further review of a municipal court judgment if:
(1) the fine assessed against the defendant exceeds $100 and the judgment is affirmed by
the appellate court; or
(2) the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which a conviction
is based.
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 30.00027(a)(1), (2) (West Supp. 2016). The government code also
provides that the record and briefs on appeal to the county court “constitute the record and briefs
on appeal” to this Court. Id. § 30.00027(b). As a result, we may not consider briefs in a
municipal appeal other than those filed in the county court. See Arias v. State, 477 S.W.3d 925,
927 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (in appeal from municipal court, the record
and briefs from the appeal to the county court constitute the record and briefs at court of
appeals); Brooks v. State, 226 S.W.3d 607, 609 n.3 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.)
(court would not consider briefs filed in appellate court because briefs in county criminal court
constitute briefs in court of appeals).
Before we may review appellant’s complaint regarding his conviction, we must have
jurisdiction over the appeal. Here, the record shows the county court at law found appellant
guilty but assessed a $50 fine. Because his fine does not exceed $100, we do not have
jurisdiction over this appeal under subsection (a)(1) of section 30.00027. See TEX. GOV’T CODE
ANN. § 30.00027(a)(1). Furthermore, the only issue raised in the county criminal court was
whether, under Texas Rule of Evidence 702, the police officer’s testimony regarding “the alleged
reliability, accuracy and results of the LIDAR radar” was admissible. Appellant did not
challenge the constitutionality of the speeding ordinance. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this
appeal under subsection (a)(2) of section 30.00027. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §
30.00027(a)(2).
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
/David W. Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
170649F.U05
–2–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
BILLY WAYNE WASS, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law
No. 1, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-17-00649-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 001-81326-2017.
Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Bridges
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
Judgment entered this 1st day of August, 2017.
–3–