DocketNumber： 06-04-00063-CV
Filed Date： 7/20/2004
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2018
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-04-00063-CV
______________________________
DEBBIE A. KNOX, WESTWARD COMMUNICATIONS
HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a THE PITTSBURG GAZETTE,
WESTWARD COMMUNICATIONS LLC, d/b/a
THE PITTSBURG GAZETTE, AND WESTWARD
COMMUNICATIONS LP, d/b/a
THE PITTSBURG GAZETTE, Appellants
Â
V.
Â
BOBBY RICHARDSON, Appellee
                                             Â
On Appeal from the 276th Judicial District Court
Camp County, Texas
Trial Court No. CV-02-3758
                                                Â
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross
MEMORANDUM OPINION
          The appellants, Debbie A. Knox, Westward Communications Holdings LLC, d/b/a The Pittsburg Gazette, Westward Communications LLC, d/b/a The Pittsburg Gazette, and Westward Communications LP, d/b/a The Pittsburg Gazette, have filed a motion asking this Court to dismiss their appeal. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), we grant the motion.
          We dismiss the appeal.
Â
                                                                           Donald R. Ross
                                                                           Justice
Date Submitted:Â Â Â Â Â Â July 19, 2004
Date Decided:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â July 20, 2004
ndicates a choice) as used in the statute applies to the word "appeal," not to the term "within 30 days." In other words, if the person whose license has been suspended elects to do so, he has the option of appealing the justice court ruling. If he does so, he must evidence the choice to appeal by filing his appeal within thirty days; upon the expiration of thirty days, the ruling becomes final. It appears that the sole reason for the failure to file an appeal within thirty days was due to a calendaring error by Jones's counsel; there is no allegation that this late filing occurred due to any misrepresentation by a clerk of the court or other court official but, rather, to an oversight due to the fact that the month of May has thirty-one days, not thirty.
Some other appeals from a justice court to a county court require the posting of a bond to perfect the appeal, such as in cases of forcible detainer. Tex. R. Civ. P. 749. The failure to file such an appeal bond in a timely manner is jurisdictional; absent such a timely filing, the county court is without jurisdiction to hear the case. See RCJ Liquidating Co. v. Village, Ltd., 670 S.W.2d 643, 644 (Tex. 1984); Wetsel v. Fort Worth Brake, Clutch & Equip., Inc., 780 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. Civ. App.--Fort Worth 1989, no writ). Likewise, Section 411.180(e)'s thirty-day requirement has been considered jurisdictional in nature. See Sullivan v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 93 S.W.3d 149, 153 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2002, no pet.) (concluding that Section 411.180(e), when satisfied, gave to the county court at law "exclusive and independent jurisdiction" and permitted the county court at law to conduct a trial de novo on the issue of revocation); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Kreipe, 29 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (concluding that filing a petition in the county court at law within thirty days after the justice court's ruling "perfects the appeal and vests jurisdiction with the county court at law"). Although the appeal of the suspension of a concealed handgun license does not require the filing of a bond, it does require the appeal to be filed within thirty days. In other words, on the expiration of the thirtieth day after the justice court ruled, the case became final and the county court at law had no jurisdiction over the matter.
Jones attempts to rely, however, on his contention that the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to cases which are appealed from a justice court to a county court or county court at law. If the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure apply, then the county court at law possessed the authority to extend a time for late filing pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 10.5 and 26.3.
Courts of appeals (which include the Texas Supreme Court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and the various courts of appeals throughout the State) are those whose powers are granted and defined in Chapter 22 of the Texas Government Code. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ǧ 22.001-.302 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2006). County courts at law are those which are the subject of Chapter 25, Texas Government Code, and constitutional county courts are the subject of Chapter 26, Texas Government Code; both of these are trial courts, not appellate courts. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ǧ 25.0001-.2656, 26.001-.353 (Vernon 2004 & Supp. 2006).
When an appeal is taken from a justice court to a county court at law or a county court (to which reference is made generically hereafter as "county court"), the county court hears the matters de novo; that is, when the case is heard in the county court, there is to be a new trial on the entire case, on both questions of fact and issues of law, conducted as if there had been no trial in the first instance. Lamar County Appraisal Dist. v. Campbell Soup Co., 93 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, no pet.). There are no provisions in Texas law for trials de novo in the courts of appeals. In contrast to a de novo hearing, it is well settled in Texas that an appellate court's review is confined to the record in the trial court when the trial court acted. See, e.g., Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2001); Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 52 n.7 (Tex. 1998); Univ. of Tex. v. Morris, 162 Tex. 60, 344 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1961); Monsanto v. Davis, 25 S.W.3d 773, 781 (Tex. App.--Waco 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.).
Whereas trial courts have the ability to shepherd the development of the evidence, the appellate courts are restricted to the record as produced at the trial level. Sabine Offshore Serv., Inc. v. City of Port Arthur, 595 S.W.2d 840, 841 (Tex. 1979); Carlton v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 32 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied); Luckette v. State, 906 S.W.2d 663, 668 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1995, pet. ref'd). A county court or county court at law, hearing appeals from justice courts on a trial de novo basis, are not considered a court of appeals.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are simply not applicable to the appeal of a matter from a justice court to a county court. See Tex. R. App. P. 1.1. Accordingly, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure do not vest the judge of the county court at law with the authority to extend the time for the filing of an appeal past the thirty days set out in Section 411.180(e) of the Texas Government Code.
When the thirty days had elapsed from the date that the justice court had issued its ruling which affirmed the suspension of Jones's concealed handgun license, that judgment became final; the county court at law did not possess any jurisdiction over the matter and, hence, lacked the authority to enter any orders of any nature concerning the case. The order the county court at law entered denying the suspension of the license is a nullity.
The other of Jones's complaints on appeal deal with matters concerning the actions of the
justice court and its authority to enter the order of suspension. Because Jones failed to properly
follow his remedies for review as provided by statute, neither the county court at law nor this Court
have the authority to deal with those complaints in this case. The trial court, having no jurisdiction
to render judgment, the judgment entered by it is void. This Court may only declare such judgment
void, set it aside, and dismiss the appeal. (2)
Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: March 28, 2007 Date Decided: April 13, 2007
1. 2. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Martinez, 18 S.W.3d 844, 847 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2000, no
pet.); Bahr v. Kohr, 928 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, writ denied).
Carlton v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co. , 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 7777 ( 2000 )
RCJ Liquidating Co. v. Village, Ltd. , 27 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 393 ( 1984 )
INS. CO. OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. Martinez , 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 2770 ( 2000 )
Lamar County Appraisal District v. Campbell Soup Co. , 93 S.W.3d 642 ( 2003 )
Bahr v. Kohr , 928 S.W.2d 98 ( 1996 )
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone , 972 S.W.2d 35 ( 1998 )
University of Texas v. Morris , 162 Tex. 60 ( 1961 )
Luckette v. State , 906 S.W.2d 663 ( 1995 )
Sullivan v. Texas Department of Public Safety , 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 8969 ( 2002 )