Clarence J. Lambrecht v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of Brazos County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-90-200-CR

CLARENCE J. LAMBRECHT,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 2038A

O P I N I O N

A jury found Appellant guilty of failing to maintain proof of financial responsibility on his automobile and assessed a $200 fine in addition to costs of court. See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6701h, 1C(a) (Vernon Supp. 1991). Relying on Coit v. State, No. 529-87 (Tex. Crim. App. April 10, 1991), he argues on appeal that the judgment is void because the applicable statutes do not require proof of liability insurance. Although we agree that the proof of the failure to maintain liability insurance will not alone support a judgment, we will affirm.

The applicable statutes are as follows:

Section 1. . . .

10. "Proof of Financial Responsibility" Proof of ability to respond in damages for liability, on account of accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of said proof, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, in the following amounts: effective January 1, 1984, Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, and, subject to said limit for one person, Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two (2) or more persons in any one accident, and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident and effective January 1, 1986, Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident, and, subject to said limit for one person, Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) because of bodily injury to or death of two (2) or more persons in any one accident, and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident. The proof of ability to respond in damages may exclude the first Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) of liability for bodily injury to or death of any one person in any one accident, and, subject to that exclusion for one person, may exclude the first Five Hundred Dollars ($500) of liability for the bodily injury to or death of two (2) or more persons in any one accident and may exclude the first Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) of liability for the injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.

. . .

Sec. 1B. (a) On and after January 1, 1982, every owner and/or operator in the State of Texas shall be required, as a condition of driving, to furnish, upon request, evidence of financial responsibility to a law enforcement officer of the State of Texas or any subdivision thereof, or agent of the department, or to another person involved in an accident.

(b) The following evidence of financial responsibility satisfies the requirment of Subsection (a) of this section:

(1) a liability insurance policy in the minimum limits required by this Act or a photocopy of that policy;

(2) a written instrument issued by a liability insurer that includes:

(A) the name of the insurer;

(B) the insurance policy number;

(C) the policy period;

(D) the name of the insured; and

(E) the policy limits or a statement that the coverage of the policy complies with the minimum amount of liability insurance required by this Act;

(3) an insurance binder that confirms to the satisfaction of a law enforcement officer or an agent of the Department that the owner and/or operator is in compliance with this Act; or

(4) a copy of a certificate issued by the Department showing that the vehicle is covered by self-insurance.

Sec. 1C. (a) Failure to maintain financial responsibility as defined in Section 1(10) of this Act is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than Seventy-five Dollars ($75). . . .

See Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann art. 6701h, 1(10), 1B(a), (b), 1C(a) (Vernon Supp. 1991).

In Coit, the defendant was charged with failure to maintain financial responsibility as defined in Section 1. Coit, No. 529-87, slip op. at 1 n.1. She complained that merely proving she did not have liability insurance was insufficient to show that she failed to maintain financial responsibility. Recognizing that there are several methods of maintaining the requisite ability to respond to damages, the court held that the failure to furnish proof of an automobile liability insurance policy was not prima facia proof of the failure to maintain financial responsibility. Id., slip op. at 2-3. //

Section 1B(b) provides four methods of showing financial responsibility (1) a liability insurance policy, (2) a written instrument issued by a liability insurer that meets certain requirements, (3) an insurance binder, or (4) a copy of a certificate showing self-insurance. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6701h, 1B(b) (Vernon Supp. 1991). Furthermore, producing in court a liability insurance policy or a certificate of self-insurance is a defense to prosecution under article 6701h. Id. at art. 6701h, 1D.

Officer Kyle testified that Appellant showed him an expired insurance card but failed to furnish any proof of current financial responsibility. Kyle claimed that Appellant never presented proof of insurance, a certificate of self insurance, an insurance policy, or any other type of evidence of financial responsibility covering his vehicle on the date in question. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant failed to maintain the requisite financial responsibility. See Butler v. State, 769 S.W.2d 234, 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Point one is overruled.

Appellant, who proceeded pro se at trial, complains in point two about being held in contempt of court. We do not reach this point, because the proper method of attacking a criminal-contempt order is by writ of habeas corpus, not by appeal. See Ex parte Moorehouse, 614 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).

Affirmed.

BOB L. THOMAS

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 8, 1992

Do not publish