Eric Paul Khozindar v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-14-00515-CR
    ERIC PAUL KHOZINDAR                                                 APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                        STATE
    ----------
    FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 4 OF DENTON COUNTY
    TRIAL COURT NO. CR-2014-01347-Y
    ----------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
    ----------
    Appellant Eric Paul Khozindar appeals pro se from his conviction for failing
    to register his vehicle. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.
    R. App. P. 43.2(f).
    On November 11, 2013, the Town of Hickory Creek, located in Denton
    County, issued Appellant a citation for failing to have a current registration
    1
    See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    insignia for his vehicle displayed on the windshield. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann.
    § 502.059(c) (West Supp. 2014), § 502.471 (West 2013). Appellant waived a
    jury trial and pleaded nolo contendere to the resulting complaint. See Tex. Code
    Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 45.018, 45.025 (West 2006), art. 45.023(a) (West Supp.
    2014). The municipal court found Appellant guilty of the offense charged in the
    complaint and entered judgment ordering Appellant to pay “a fine and costs in
    the amount of $170.” See 
    id. art. 45.041
    (West Supp. 2014).
    Appellant appealed to the county criminal court, which was a trial de novo
    because the municipal court was not a municipal court of record.            See 
    id. arts. 44.17,
    45.042(b) (West 2006); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 30.00001–
    .01904 (West 2004 & Supp. 2014) (providing for municipal courts of record in
    certain cities, not including Hickory Creek). Appellant again waived his right to a
    trial by jury; he pleaded not guilty to the complaint. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
    Ann. art. 1.13 (West Supp. 2014), art. 27.16 (West 2006). Appellant seemed to
    argue in the county criminal court that the county assessor-collector wrongfully
    refused to renew his vehicle registration based on his nonpayment of a civil fine
    previously imposed for his failure to stop at a red light at an intersection equipped
    with red-light cameras. 2 See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 707.002 (West 2011),
    § 707.017 (West Supp. 2014). The county criminal court found Appellant guilty
    2
    The record contains no information or evidence regarding this alleged
    citation such as the date it was issued, the issuing city, or whether Appellant
    subsequently attempted to renew his registration but was denied based on the
    unpaid red-light citation.
    2
    of failing to have a current registration for his vehicle and entered judgment
    ordering Appellant to pay a fine of $1 and all costs.
    Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court and designated a partial
    reporter’s record, requesting that only his opening statements in the county
    criminal court be transcribed. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c). On appeal, Appellant
    argues that transportation code section 707.017—the statutory provision allowing
    a county assessor-collector to refuse to renew a vehicle’s registration if a vehicle
    owner fails to pay a red-light-camera citation—is unconstitutional by depriving
    him of a property interest without procedural due process. See Tex. Code Crim.
    Proc. Ann. art. 4.03 (West 2015) (providing limited appellate jurisdiction to courts
    of appeals over case appealed from municipal court to county criminal court if the
    fine imposed exceeds $100 or if “the sole issue is the constitutionality of the
    statute or ordinance on which the conviction is based”).
    Appellant challenges the constitutionality of section 707.017 based on the
    State’s alleged failure to provide him procedural due process before denying his
    vehicle registration under the auspices of that statute. He does not in any way
    challenge the “constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which the conviction
    is based”—transportation code sections 502.059 and 502.471. Because the fine
    assessed by the county criminal court, exclusive of costs, did not exceed $100
    and because Appellant is not challenging the constitutionality of section 502.059
    or section 502.471, we have no jurisdiction over his attempted appeal. See 
    id. Accordingly, we
    dismiss the appeal. See Cooper v. State, No. 05-10-01004-CR,
    3
    
    2012 WL 3631237
    , at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 24, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.,
    not designated for publication) (citing Boyd v. State, 
    11 S.W.3d 324
    , 325 (Tex.
    App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)); Hernandez v. State, No. 04-07-
    00085-CR, 
    2008 WL 441783
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 20, 2008, no
    pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
    /s/ Lee Gabriel
    LEE GABRIEL
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: May 28, 2015
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-14-00515-CR

Filed Date: 5/28/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015