Elijah White Ratcliff v. State ( 2007 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-06-389 CR ____________________

ELIJAH WHITE RATCLIFF, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the County Court San Jacinto County, Texas Trial Cause No. 06-521

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Elijah White Ratcliff appeals his conviction for speeding. The case originated in the justice court. Ratcliff appealed to the county court. The trial court found Ratcliff guilty of speeding and assessed a $100 fine. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

White raised three issues, as follows:

I. Whether the Justice Court No. 1, San Jacinto County, Texas, Docket No. 2006-1-0887, unconstitutionally and dilatorily refused appellant compulsory process for the attendance of a witness in his behalf.

II. Whether the Justice Court No. 1, San Jacinto County, Texas, No. 2006-1-0887, unconstitutionally refused appellant's motion to quash the trial jury array.

III. Whether the Justice Court No. 1., San Jacinto County, Texas, No. 2006-1-0887, unconstitutionally denied appellant a speedy, fair and impartial trial by his peers through abusive exercise of magisterial executions and settings.

When the State noted in its brief that Ratcliff failed to raise any error relating the judgment being appealed, Ratcliff filed a reply brief that restated his third issue to the following:

III. The abuses by the justice court and the county court, San Jacinto County, Texas, unconstitutionally denied appellant a speedy, fair and impartial trial by his peers through abusive, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and dilatory irregularities.

Article 4.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure describes our appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, as follows:

The Courts of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of their respective districts in all criminal cases except those in which the death penalty has been assessed. This Article shall not be so construed as to embrace any case which has been appealed from any inferior court to the county court, the county criminal court, or county court at law, in which the fine imposed by the county court, the county criminal court or county court at law does not exceed one hundred dollars, unless the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which the conviction is based.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.03 (Vernon 2005).

The justice court had original jurisdiction in the case. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.11 (Vernon 2005). The county court had appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.08 (Vernon 2005). Ratcliff appealed this case from the justice court to the county court, and the fine assessed did not exceed $100. Therefore, this Court's jurisdiction could be invoked only on an issue of the constitutionality of the statute on which his conviction is based. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.03. Ratcliff raises issues relating to the constitutionality of the proceedings, but does not challenge the constitutionality of the speeding statute. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.351 (Vernon 1999). Our jurisdiction has not been invoked. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

_____________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on April 12, 2007

Opinion Delivered April 25, 2007

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.