Luke Fredrick Bickham v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law of Smith County

NOS. 12-03-00131-CR
12-03-00132-CR
12-03-00133-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

LUKE FREDRICK BICKHAM,

 
APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
COUNTY COURT AT LAW

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
SMITH COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal concerns the disposition of three cases appealed to a county court at law from a justice court. Luke F. Bickham appeals from the County Court at Law's order dismissing his cases for want of jurisdiction. In his sole issue, he asserts the County Court at Law had jurisdiction to hear the cases. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

 

Background

Appellant received three speeding tickets on three different days. In three separate proceedings on different days, the cases were heard in justice court. Appellant pleaded no contest in two of the cases. In the third case, he pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty by a jury. Appellant appealed all three cases to the county court at law. On April 4, 2002, the judge of the County Court at Law Number 3 entered an order dismissing all three appeals for want of prosecution and remanding them back to the justice court for imposition of the original sentences.

On June 18, 2002, a hearing was held in the County Court at Law Number 3 during which Appellant explained that, although the order states that the cases were dismissed for want of prosecution, he did appear. Further, although the dismissal had been entered in response to his request, he had requested a remand back to the justice court, and not a dismissal. He believed he could get a better deal in the justice court than the prosecutor had offered in the County Court at Law. Appellant then requested jury trials in the County Court at Law on all three cases. The judge questioned whether he had jurisdiction to reverse the dismissal order and entertain Appellant's latest request for jury trials.

On June 19, 2002, Appellant again filed appeal bonds in each case. All three stated that judgments were rendered against him in justice court on June 18, 2002. All three were signed by the Justice of the Peace on June 19, 2002 and filed of record. The three cases were sent back to the County Court at Law, given new cause numbers, and set for trial. Those trial dates were continued. On January 7, 2003, the State filed its motion to dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. The basis of the motion was that the cases had been dismissed on April 4, 2002 because Appellant failed to appear for trial. The motion did not mention the information discussed at the June 18 hearing or the fact that Appellant had filed new appeal bonds on June 19. On March 31, 2003, the judge of the County Court at Law entered an order granting the State's motion and dismissing the appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis

In his sole issue, Appellant asserts the dismissal order was entered in error. He contends that, once he filed his appeal bonds, he properly perfected his appeals, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the county court.

Appeals from a justice court must be heard in county court. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 4.08, 45.042 (Vernon 1977 & Supp. 2004). If an appeal bond meets the requirements of the code of criminal procedure, the justice court must approve it. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.0425(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004). The bond must be at least twice the amount of the fine and costs adjudged against the defendant, payable to the State of Texas. Id. The bond must state that the defendant was convicted, has appealed, and will appear before the court to which appeal is taken. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.0425(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004). When the appeal bond is filed with the justice court not later than the tenth day after the date of the judgment, the appeal shall be held to be perfected. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.0426(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004).

The first appeal ended when the County Court at Law dismissed the appeals and remanded the cases back to justice court. The following day, Appellant filed new appeal bonds, reciting all the information required by the statute and signed by the justice of the peace. At that point, jurisdiction was once again conferred on the county court at law. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 45.0426(a). Accordingly, the county court at law erred when it entered an order dismissing the appeals for want of jurisdiction. We sustain Appellant's issue.

 

Conclusion

We reverse and remand for further proceedings in County Court at Law.

 

DIANE DEVASTO

Justice

 

Opinion delivered November 26, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)