Hayes v. State, 12-15-00194-CV

• Decision Date: 31 March 2017
• Docket Number: NO. 12-15-00194-CV,12-15-00194-CV
• Citation: 518 S.W.3d 585
• Parties: David HAYES, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

518 S.W.3d 585

David HAYES, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee

NO. 12-15-00194-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.

Opinion delivered March 31, 2017.

Mr. James H. Owen, for Appellant.

Mr. Barry L. Spencer Jr., Mr. Clinton Davis, Athens, for Appellee.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

OPINION

Greg Neeley, Justice.

David Hayes appeals an order directing the animal control officer with the Henderson County Sheriff's Office to humanely destroy three dogs pursuant to Chapter 822 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. In one issue, Hayes claims the trial court committed reversible error by denying him a jury trial. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2015, Mikel "Christopher" Kirkpatrick was riding a bicycle in the roadway in front Hayes's residence when Hayes's three dogs attacked him. An officer from the Henderson County Sheriff's Office executed an affidavit for seizure of the dogs. The justice court issued a warrant to seize the three dogs. Following a hearing, the justice court found that the dogs were dangerous under section 822.041 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, and had caused serious bodily injury to a person. The justice court ordered that two of the dogs be humanely destroyed and the third dog be returned to Hayes.

Hayes appealed the justice court's order to the county court at law and requested a jury trial.¹ The Henderson County Attorney's Office objected to the jury request. The county court at law sustained the objection and removed the case from the jury docket. After a bench trial, the judge found the three dogs were dangerous, that Hayes was the owner of the dogs, and that as a result of an unprovoked attack, Kirkpatrick suffered serious bodily injury. In accordance with these findings, the court ordered that the three dogs be humanely destroyed and ordered Hayes to pay $2,780.00 to Henderson County. This appeal followed.²

ISSUES PRESENTED

In his sole issue, Hayes contends that the county court at law erred by removing his case from the jury docket and denying him a jury trial after his timely jury request and payment of the applicable fee. Henderson County did not contest the county court at law's subject matter jurisdiction. However, on appeal, it asserts that Hayes had no right to appeal the justice court's ruling. Accordingly, this case presents two questions for our review: (1) whether the owner of a dog ordered to be humanely destroyed by a justice, county, or municipal court judge, pursuant to Chapter 822, subchapter A, of the Texas Health and Safety Code, has the right to appeal such order; and (2) if an appeal is allowed, whether a jury can be requested to hear the de novo appeal.

RIGHT TO APPEAL THE JUSTICE COURT'S ORDER

We first address Hayes's right to appeal the justice court's order to the county court at law because it directly affects this Court's jurisdiction.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

"Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case." Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993). It is never presumed and cannot be waived. Id . at 443-44. An appellate court is obligated, even sua sponte , to determine the threshold question of jurisdiction. See Walker Sand, Inc. v. Baytown Asphalt Materials, Ltd. , 95 S.W.3d 511, 514 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).

The construction of a statute is also a question of law we review de novo. See First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Combs , 258 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex. 2008). When interpreting a statute, we look first to the plain meaning of the words used. Id . If the statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its words according to their common meaning in a way that gives effect to each word, clause, and sentence. Id . We do not resort to extrinsic aides, such as legislative history, to interpret a clear and unambiguous statute. Sullivan v. Abraham , 488 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. 2016). We apply these same concepts when construing rules of civil procedure. Bradt v. Sebek , 14 S.W.3d 756, 762 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Rule interpretation, like statutory interpretation, is a question of law over which the trial court has no discretion. Id .

Discussion

Chapter 822 of the Texas Health and Safety Code governs the regulation of animals. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 822.001 -.116 (West 2010 & Supp. 2016). Under subsection A, upon the receipt of a sworn complaint stating that a dog caused serious bodily injury, a justice, county, or municipal court must order animal control to seize the dog. Id . § 822.002(a) (West 2010). The court must then conduct a hearing, within ten days after issuance of the warrant, to determine whether (1) the dog caused serious bodily injury by attacking, biting, or mauling someone, and (2) if it should be destroyed or released. Id . § 822.003(a), (e) (West 2010). Subchapter A is silent as to the right of appeal from such an order. See id . §§ 822.001 -.007.

On appeal, Henderson County cites Pitts v. State , 918 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no pet.) to support its contention that the county court at law lacked jurisdiction over Hayes's appeal. Pitts dealt with Chapter 821 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, which provides a limited right to appeal an order divesting ownership of animals when a justice court finds animal cruelty, depending on whether the order directed the animals to be sold at public auction, given to a nonprofit shelter, or humanely destroyed. See Pitts , 918 S.W.2d at 4-5 ; see also TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 821.001 -.081 (West 2010 & Supp. 2016). The numerous amendments to Chapter 821, and disagreement between appellate courts in interpreting an owner's right to appeal under the statute's various versions, is outlined in Gracia v. State , Nos. 14-11-00241-CV and Nos. 14-11-00617-CV, 2012 WL 2928576, *2-3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). Gracia notes that the conflicting appellate holdings were effectively superseded by subsequent amendments to the statute, which make the county court at law's decision final and unappealable, thus, their holdings do not apply to future cases and any conflict no longer requires resolution. See id. at *2 n.4; see also TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 821.025 (West Supp. 2016). Accordingly, we do not view Pitts as controlling authority on the issue before us.

According to Henderson County, an owner of a dog ordered destroyed pursuant to section 822.004 can only appeal that order if a right to appeal is expressed in the statute's plain and unambiguous language. The argument continues that since subchapter A is silent as to the right of appeal, the legislature intended that Hayes have no right to appeal the justice court's order that his dogs be destroyed. We acknowledge that the Legislature has the power to limit the right of appeal, including the authority to deny the right to appeal entirely or to allow a limited right to appeal.

In re Jenevein , 158 S.W.3d 116, 119 (Tex. 2003) ; Howell Aviation Servs. v. Aerial Ads, Inc. , 29 S.W.3d 321, 323 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.). However, Henderson County has failed to cite any authority, and we have found none, that when a statute is silent as to a right of appeal, the legislature intended to eliminate that right.

We decline to interpret subchapter A's failure to expressly provide for a right to appeal an order that a dog be destroyed as legislative intent that such an order cannot be appealed. Unlike in Chapter 821, the legislature has not expressly limited the right of appeal in subchapter A of Chapter 822. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 821.025, 822.001 -.007. The legislature could have imposed similar language in subchapter A had it intended to limit the right to appeal. Moreover, subchapter D of Chapter 822, which addresses dangerous dogs, allows a party to appeal a justice court's dangerous dog finding to a county court or county court at law and affords that party the right to a jury trial on request. Id . § 822.0424(a) (West Supp. 2016). Both the justice court and the county court at law found the dogs to be dangerous under subchapter D. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.041 (West 2010). Although subchapter A contains no such express provision, we must construe the two provisions as a whole, not in isolation, and we must consider the consequences of a particular construction. See Marcus Cable Assoc., L.P. v. Krohn , 90 S.W.3d 697, 706 (Tex. 2002). We cannot construe subchapter A in a manner that is inconsistent with subchapter D, and we must construe the statute to avoid constitutional infirmities. See id. A party's right to an appeal is a sacred and valuable right. Masterson v. Hogue , 842 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1992, no pet.). We liberally construe rules controlling appellate procedure in favor of the right to appeal. Consol. Furniture Co. v. Kelly , 366 S.W.2d 922, 923 (Tex. 1963).

Subchapter D addresses "dangerous dog" findings and imposes requirements on owners in possession of a "dangerous dog." See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 822.041 -.047. As previously discussed, subchapter A addresses the procedure by which a dog is taken from the owner and subject to being destroyed. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN . § 822.001 -.007. Accordingly, subchapter A has graver consequences than subchapter D. Applying the rules of statutory construction, it is reasonable to conclude that the legislature felt it necessary to expressly provide for a right to appeal in a less severe provision of Chapter 822, and that an express grant of the right to appeal was not necessary for a provision involving the forfeiture of property, as the law does not favor the forfeiture of property rights and statutes are to be construed in favor of the right to...