Elijah White Ratcliff v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law of Polk County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
______________________
NO. 09-06-240 CR
______________________
ELIJAH WHITE RATCLIFF, Appellant
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 2005-0814
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Elijah White Ratcliff appeals from a conviction for unlawfully passing a school bus. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. 545.066 (Vernon Supp. 2006). We affirm the judgment of the county court at law.

A jury in the justice court found Ratcliff guilty of disregarding a school bus while the bus was unloading, and assessed a $500 fine. Ratcliff appealed to the county court at law. After a bench trial, the county court at law found Ratcliff guilty of passing a school bus, and assessed a $200 fine and court costs.

In this appeal, Ratcliff's first two issues contend that the justice court erred in denying his request to subpoena witnesses and in denying him access to the jury list. In issue three, he argues the justice court and the county court at law "unconstitutionally denied appellant a speedy, fair and impartial trial by his peers through abusive exercise of peremptory challenges," and erred in denying his Batson (1) challenges.

A party may appeal a justice court's judgment to the county court at law. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.08 (Vernon 2005). The county court at law shall try the case de novo as if the prosecution originally commenced in that court. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 44.17 (Vernon 2006). In a trial de novo, a court will generally conduct a new trial on the entire case and without reference to any procedural errors that may have occurred in the lower court. Lamar County Appraisal Dist. v. Campbell Soup Co., 93 S.W.3d 642, 645 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, no pet.); see also State v. Alley, 158 S.W.3d 485, 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining that in an appeal from a justice court, a trial de novo would ignore the justice court's ruling). Generally, a trial de novo cures all procedural defects in the proceedings below. Campbell Soup Co., 93 S.W.3d at 645.

In this case, the county court at law conducted a new trial on Ratcliff's entire case. All alleged procedural defects in the justice court proceedings were cured. See id. We overrule issues one and two.

To the extent Ratcliff attacks the jury selection process in the justice court in issue three, the trial de novo cured any alleged error. See id. The county court at law conducted a bench trial; therefore, there is no merit to any argument that attacks jury selection in the county court at law. We overrule issue three.

In his reply brief, Ratcliff presents a fourth issue that argues the county court at law should have dismissed the case because both the county court at law and the justice court failed to provide him with a speedy trial. This issue does not entirely correspond to the issues raised in his original brief, nor does this argument address matters in the State's brief. A reply brief is not the place to raise new appellate issues. The reply brief should be limited to "addressing any matter in the appellee's brief." Tex. R. App. P. 38.3. In any event, we find nothing in the record to suggest that Ratcliff was denied a speedy trial. See generally Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (finding violation of right to speedy trial when State's negligence caused four year delay between DWI arrest and plea hearing, and delay prejudiced defendant's case). Ratcliff was issued the traffic citation on May 17, 2005, the justice court signed the judgment on July 26, 2005, and the county court at law conducted its trial de novo on May 8, 2006.

We overrule Ratcliff's issues and affirm the judgment of the county court at law.

 

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on March 29, 2007

Opinion Delivered July 11, 2007

Do Not Publish

 

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

 

1. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986).