Garrett v. State

• Decision Date: 12 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 01–13–00694–CR.,01–13–00694–CR.
• Citation: 424 S.W.3d 624
• Parties: Frederick H. GARRETT, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

424 S.W.3d 624

Frederick H. GARRETT, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 01–13–00694–CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Dec. 5, 2013.

Discretionary Review Refused Mar. 12, 2014.

Raymond F. Coldren, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

Devon Anderson, Harris County District Attorney, Alan Curry, Assistant District Attorney, Harris County, Houston, TX, for State.

Panel consists of Justices KEYES, HIGLEY, and MASSENGALE.

OPINION

LAURA CARTER HIGLEY, Justice.

In Harris County municipal court, a jury found appellant Frederick H. Garrett guilty of the Class C misdemeanor offense of violating the rule adopted by the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety that prohibits a person from driving a commercial motor vehicle unless he is wearing a seat belt.¹ The jury assessed punishment at a $250.00 fine. Appellant appealed to the county criminal court at law, which affirmed the conviction. ²

In his appeal to this Court, appellant asserts the same two arguments that he originally raised in municipal court in his motion for new trial and then repeated in the county criminal court at law.³ He argues that the municipal court erred in denying his motion to quash the complaint because, based on the doctrine of in pari materia, he should have been charged under a different, more lenient statute, which makes it an offense to ride in a passenger vehicle without wearing a seatbelt.⁴ Appellant also contends that the trial court erred by incorrectly instructing the jury under the wrong statute.

We affirm.

Background

On September 4, 2009, Houston police officer J. Whitehead was assigned the duty of spotting commercial truck drivers who were committing seat belt violations. The officer was parked at a gas station located at an intersection when he saw appellant, who was driving a truck tractor hauling a load of gasoline. As appellant slowed down for a red light, Officer Whitehead observed that, although the truck tractor was equipped with a seat belt assembly at the driver's seat, appellant was not restrained. Officer Whitehead pulled appellant over and issued him a citation for failing to wear a seatbelt while driving a commercial vehicle.

The State's complaint charged appellant as follows: “... Frederick H. Garrett ... on or about September 4, 2009 ... unlawfully operate[d] a commercial motor vehicle which had a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat ... when not properly restrained with the seat belt assembly.” The basis for the charged offense is Title 49, Part 392, section 392.16 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“Regulation 392.16”). The regulation prohibits a commercial motor vehicle, equipped with a seat belt assembly at the driver's seat, from being driven unless the driver is restrained by the seat belt. See49 C.F.R. § 392.16. Regulation 392.16 has been adopted as a state rule by the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. SeeTex. Transp. Code Ann. § 644.051(c) (providing that director may adopt all or part of the federal regulations by reference) (Vernon 2011); See37 Tex. Admin. Code § 4.11(a) (2013) (reflecting that the director has adopted Regulation 392.16).

Texas law makes the violation of an adopted rule a Class C misdemeanor. SeeTex. Transp. Code Ann. § 644.151 (Vernon 2011). A Class C misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. SeeTex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.23 (Vernon 2011).

Before trial, appellant moved to quash the complaint on the basis that Regulation 392.16, requiring drivers of commercial vehicles to wear a seat belt, is in pari materia with Section 545.413(a)(1) of the Texas Transportation Code, which makes it an offense for persons over the age of 15 years not to wear a seat belt when riding in a passenger vehicle equipped with a seat belt assembly. SeeTex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.413(a)(1) (Vernon Supp.2013). A violation of Section 545.413(a) carries a fine of $25 to $50. See§ 545.413(d). Appellant argued that he should have been charged under Section 545.413(a)(1) because it is more narrowly tailored than Regulation 392.16, and a violation of that provision carries a lower penalty. The trial court denied appellant's motion to quash the complaint.

The case was tried to a jury in a municipal court of record. Officer Whitehead testified for the State. He stated that he saw appellant driving a commercial motor vehicle, equipped with a seat belt assembly at the driver's seat, and observed that appellant was not restrained by the seat belt.

Appellant testified in his own defense. He stated that he was delivering a load of gas to a station five miles away when he was stopped by Officer Whitehead. Appellant claimed that he was wearing his seat belt at the time. He stated that Officer Whitehead must have been mistaken regarding his belief that appellant was not restrained by a seat belt when he saw appellant driving the truck.

After the close of evidence, appellant objected to the proposed jury charge. He asserted that the jury was being instructed regarding the wrong offense. He claimed that the jury should be instructed regarding the offense of failure to wear a seat belt while a passenger in a passenger vehicle, as defined by Transportation Code Section 545.413(a)(1). Appellant argued that he should have been charged under Section 545.413 because that statute more specifically defines the offense of driving a truck tractor without wearing a seat belt in Texas. The trial court overruled appellant's objection and instructed the jury regarding the offense for which appellant was charged in the complaint; that is, violating Regulation 392.16. Concomitantly, the trial court instructed the jury that, if it found appellant guilty, it could assess a fine not to exceed $500, the fine associated with violating Regulation 392.16.

The jury found appellant guilty as charged in the complaint. It assessed a $250 fine against appellant.

Appellant filed a motion for new trial, raising two issues. He reasserted his argument that the trial court should have quashed the complaint. He maintained that the offense of driving a commercial vehicle without wearing a seat belt (Regulation 392.16) and the offense of failure to wear a seat belt while riding in a passenger vehicle (Transportation Code Section 545.413(a)(1)) are in pari materia. Appellantpointed out that a truck tractor is included in the definition of a “passenger vehicle.” SeeTex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.412(f)(2) (Vernon Supp.2013). Appellant also argued that Regulation 392.16 and Section 545.413(a)(1) irreconcilably conflict because they apply to the same subject but carry different punishment ranges. Appellant argued that he should have been charged under Section 545.413(a)(1), the more specific statute with the lower fine.

Appellant also reasserted his claim that the trial court should have instructed the jury regarding the offense of failure to wear a seat belt while riding in a passenger vehicle, as defined by Transportation Code Section 545.413(a)(1). Specifically, appellant claimed that the municipal trial court should have instructed the jury that it could assess a fine of $25 to $50, as provided in Section 545.413(d).

The trial court denied appellant's motion for new trial. Appellant appealed to the county criminal court at law.⁵ In his brief, appellant presented the same two issues that he raised in his motion for new trial. ⁶

In its written opinion, the county criminal court at law affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the trial court had not erred in denying appellant's motion to quash the complaint because Regulation 392.16 and Transportation Code Section 545.413 are not in pari materia. The county court also held that, because appellant had been charged under the correct statute, the trial court did not err by instructing the jury regarding the law under Regulation 392.16.

Appellant now appeals to this Court. The record and briefs from the county criminal court at law have been filed in this Court and constitute the record and briefs in this appeal. SeeTex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00027(b) (Vernon Supp.2013). Thus, we review the same two issues raised in the briefs submitted to the county criminal court at law. See id.

Motion to Quash Complaint

Appellant first challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to quash the State's complaint. In support of this issue, appellant claims that the offense of driving a commercial vehicle without a wearing a seat belt (Regulation 392.16), which carries a fine up to $500, and the offense of riding in a passenger vehicle without wearing a seat belt (Transportation Code Section 545.413(a)), which carries a fine of $25 to $50, are in pari materia. To support this claim, appellant asserts that the statutes cover the same general subject matter and have the same general purpose. Appellant argues that he should have been charged under Section 545.413(a)(1) because it “more specifically defines the offense of operating a truck without a seatbelt in Texas.” Appellant points out that a violation of Section 545.413(a)(1) carries a lower penalty. For these reasons, appellant asserts that his motion to quash the complaint should have been granted.

A. Standard of Review

An issue raised by an indictment, or as in this case a complaint, may present a question of law. See Bearnth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 135, 141 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (citing Hollin v. State, 227 S.W.3d 117, 120 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd)). The question is subject to de novo review when its resolution does not require an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of a witness. Id. Here, the issue of whether Regulation 392.16 and Section 545.413(a)(1) are in pari materia is a question of law we review de novo. See id.

B. The Doctrine of In Pari Materia

“The doctrine of in pari materia is a rule of statutory construction that seeks to carry out the Legislature's intent.” Jones v. State, 396 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (c...