Ex Parte: Francisco Avila ( 2002 )

                             NUMBER 13-01-161-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                           CORPUS CHRISTI

                        EX PARTE: FRANCISCO AVILA

  

                   On appeal from the 94th District Court

                           of Nueces County, Texas.

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

                       Before Justices Dorsey, Yañez, & Castillo

                                  Opinion by Justice Dorsey

This case is an attempted appeal by the City of Corpus Christi from an order entered January 11, 2001, by the 94th Judicial District Court in Nueces County, Texas.  This order exempted Francisco Avila, appellee, from registration requirements for sexual offenders as authorized by article 62.0105 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.0105 (Vernon 2002). Article 62.0105 allows for certain classes of persons who would normally be required to register as sex offenders to petition a court for an order exempting such a person from registration at Aany time after the person=s sentencing or after the person is placed on deferred adjudication community supervision.@  Id. at art. 62.0105(a).

 Avila filed a petition in compliance with that code section.  A hearing was held by the trial court, likewise complying with the code, at which the State appeared and participated through the Nueces County District Attorney=s Office.  The City attempts to appeal this order, contending that it has an Ainterest in the subject matter of this suit@ by virtue of the fact that the City is responsible for maintaining the database of registered sex offenders.  We disagree.

Article 62.0105 does not list any entities who must be named parties and served with notice of a proceeding under that article.  Id. Where the law does not require notice to be given a person or entity, the action is ex parte.   However in this case the state participated in the hearing, thus representing the interests of the public, if any.

AIn order for any person to maintain a suit it is necessary that he have standing to litigate the matters in issue.@  Hunt v. Bass, 664 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Tex. 1984).  A plaintiff has standing when it is personally aggrieved or otherwise has a justiciable interest in the controversy.  See Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996).  Without the plaintiff having standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.  Nootsie, 659 S.W.2d at 662. The city was not a party to the action below, but claims its interest arises from its clerical duty to maintain the records.  Such is not a sufficient interest in the proceedings to give it standing to contest the order of the trial court.  We have discovered no cases hinting the contrary.

Accordingly, we hold that the City lacks standing to bring this appeal and dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY,

Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 25th day of April, 2002.