Felts v. State
| Decision Date | 27 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 01-21-00545-CR |
| Parties | MARTIN FELTS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
MARTIN FELTS, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 01-21-00545-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, First District
October 27, 2022
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 250807
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower.
OPINION
Sherry Radack Chief Justice
Appellant, Martin Felts, pleaded no contest to misdemeanor theft of property having a value less than $100,[1] and the municipal court of record assessed his
punishment at a $200 fine. The municipal court then deferred the imposition of the fine for approximately four months; if appellant complied with certain conditions during the period of the deferred disposition, the charge against him would be dismissed. After two months, the court held a hearing, at which it determined that appellant had violated the terms of his deferred disposition. Thereafter, the municipal court convicted appellant and imposed the aforementioned $200 fine. Appellant appealed to the county court at law, which affirmed his conviction, leading to the appeal before this Court. In 12 issues, appellant challenges the procedure through which his deferred disposition was revoked. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 2021, a complaint was filed against appellant in Pearland Municipal Court, a municipal court of record.[2] On June 2, 2021, appellant pleaded no contest to misdemeanor theft of property having a value less than $100, and the municipal court assessed a $200 fine as punishment.[3] Under the authority of Article 45.051 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and with appellant's agreement, the trial court "order[ed] that the imposition of the fine is deferred" and set several
conditions of the deferred disposition, including that appellant "NOT be subsequently charged with any offense against the laws of the state, the United States, or any penal ordinance of any political subdivision of the state." See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.051.
On July 6, 2021, the municipal court notified appellant that the court was setting a "show cause" hearing on August 2, 2021, at which appellant could "explain why you failed to comply with your agreement(s) made with this court." See id. § 45.051(c-1). The municipal court also informed appellant that "[y]ou may show any proof you have to the judge that your condition(s) have been met." Finally, the municipal courted noted that "[i]f your case(s) results in a conviction, then the judge will inform you of any fines due and the due date."
On August 3, 2021, the municipal court held the aforementioned show-cause hearing, after which it issued a Final Judgment that (1) noted that appellant had pleaded no contest to the charged offense and (2) assessed fines and costs at $216, noting that appellant had already paid $200. See id. §§ 45.041, 45.051(d). This judgment constitutes a final conviction. See id. 45.051(d). Appellant did not request a court reporter at the show-cause hearing, and no record was made of the proceeding. See Tex. Gov't Code § 30.00010(c).
On August 11, 2021, appellant filed a Motion for New Trial in the municipal court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 45.037. In his motion, appellant (1) alleged
that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty and challenged (2) whether the municipal judge could, sua sponte, move to revoke the deferred disposition, (3) whether he was entitled to advance notice of such revocation, (4) whether his deferred disposition could be revoked without evidence that the conditions of deferred had been violated, (5) whether the municipal court could revoke his deferred disposition without an evidentiary hearing, (6) whether the municipal court could place the burden of proof on appellant in the revocation proceeding, (7) whether article 45.051 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to appellant, (8) whether the court could revoke deferred without an actual violation of the law, and (9) whether the municipal court properly followed article 45.051, gave appellant adequate notice of the hearing, and preserved a record thereof.
On September 9, 2021, the municipal court denied appellant's motion for new trial, and, on September 2, 2021, appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Brazoria County Court at Law No. 1. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 4.08, 45.042. The appeal in the county court at law was on the record only,[4] and, after both appellant
and the State filed briefs, the county court at law affirmed the municipal court judgment.[5]
This appeal followed. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.03.
PROPRIETY OF COUNTY COURT AT LAW'S AFFIRMATION OF MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD JUDGMENT
In 12 issues on appeal, appellant contends the county court at law erred by affirming the judgment of the municipal court of record. Specifically, appellant contends that (1) the county court at law and this Court have jurisdiction over his appeal, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty, (3) the municipal judge could not, sua sponte, move to revoke the deferred disposition, (4) he was denied advance notice of such revocation, (5) his deferred disposition could not be revoked without evidence that the conditions of deferred disposition had been violated, (6) the municipal court could not revoke his deferred disposition without an evidentiary hearing, (7) the municipal court could not place the burden of proof on appellant in the revocation proceeding, (8) article 45.051 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof to appellant, (9) the court could not revoke a deferred disposition without an actual violation of the law, (10) the municipal court did not properly follow article 45.051, give appellant adequate notice of the hearing, and preserve a record thereof, (11) requiring appellant to prove
compliance with the conditions of deferred disposition violates his right against self-incrimination, and (12) the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appellant's deferred disposition.
Applicable Law
As discussed earlier, appellant appealed the municipal court's judgment to the county court at law. To perfect an appeal from the judgment of a municipal court of record, the defendant must file a motion for new trial setting out "the points of error on which the appellant complains." Tex. Gov't Code § 30.00014(c). The reviewing court must decide the appeal "on the basis of the errors that are set forth in the appellant's motion for new trial and that are presented in the clerk's record and reporter's record." Id. § 30.00014(b). Accordingly, "when appealing from a municipal court of record, to preserve an issue for consideration, a claim of error must be raised in the motion for new trial, and the record must reflect that the same claim was raised before the municipal court." Leverson v. State, Nos. 03-15-00090-CR, 2016 WL 4628054, at *2 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 30, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Moreover, "[a]n appeal from the municipal court of record may not be by trial de novo." Tex. Gov't Code § 30.00014(b); see Swain v. State, 319 S.W.3d 878, 879 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (providing that reviewing court "may not retry the case"). Instead, the reviewing court "sits as an appellate court and considers arguments
addressing any errors shown in the municipal court record." Nelson v. State, Nos. 12-10-00263-CR, 2011 WL 2638738, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 30, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
After the reviewing court considers the appeal, a defendant may seek further appellate review with a court of appeals if "the fine assessed against the defendant exceeds $100 and the judgment is affirmed by the [reviewing] court" or if "the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which a conviction is based." Tex. Gov't Code § 30.00027(a). However, unlike more traditional appeals, "the record and briefs on appeal in the [reviewing] court constitute the record and briefs on appeal to the court of appeals unless the rules of the court of criminal appeals provide otherwise." Id. § 30.00027(b). Accordingly, the briefs before the reviewing court are "the operative brief[s] before" a court of appeals. See Roberts v. State, 49 S.W.3d 89, 90 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd); see also O'Reilly v. State, 501 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2016, no pet.) (noting that defendant "raised three issues in his appeal to the county criminal court of appeals to which he is limited here on appeal"); Sanchez v. State, 137 S.W.3d 860, 861 n.2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. dism'd) (explaining that discussion of appellate point "refer[red] to the issue raised in the brief filed by appellant in the county criminal court"). A court of appeals may not "consider the briefs filed by the parties" with the court of appeals. See Brooks v. State, 226 S.W.3d 607, 609 n.3
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Avni v. State, No. 14-16-00445-CR, 2016 WL 7108398, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 6, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (stating that "[t]he court of appeals will not consider briefs in a municipal appeal other than those filed in the county court"); Huy H. Le v. State, No. 14-14-00747-CR, 2015 WL 3524294, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] June 4, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same).
"The Government Code does not fully address how a court of appeals should review an appeal from a judgment by a municipal court of record so as to account for the fact that there has been an intervening appellate determination by the county court at law." Canada v. State, 547 S.W.3d 4, 12 (Tex. App.-Austin 2017, no pet.). "However, the limitations imposed on the record and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial