Hickman v. State

• Decision Date: 01 March 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 3966.)
• Citation: 183 S.W. 1180
• Parties: HICKMAN v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

183 S.W. 1180

HICKMAN v. STATE.

(No. 3966.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1916.

Appeal from Lampasas County Court; J. Tom Higgins, Judge.

Pink Hickman was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Lampasas and his appeal to the county court dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Matthews & Browning, of Lampasas, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted in the corporation court of the city of Lampasas for violating an ordinance of that city, from which conviction he prosecuted an appeal to the county court of Lampasas county. When the cause came on to be heard, the county judge held that no appeal would lie to the county court from a conviction in the recorder's court for violation of a city ordinance, and dismissed the appeal. From this order of dismissal appellant has appealed to this court, and the question presented is: Will an appeal lie to the county court from a conviction for violating a city ordinance had in the corporation court of such city?

This question first came before this court in the case of Bautsch v. City of Galveston, 27 Tex. App. 342, 11 S. W. 414, and it was held that such an appeal would lie, and this court has uniformly followed that opinion since its rendition. Lopez v. State, 17 S. W. 1090; Taylor v. State, 16 Tex. App. 514; Robbins v. State, 20 S. W. 359; Thielen v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 310, 65 S. W. 533; Martin v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 197, 69 S. W. 508; Strauss v. State, 173 S. W. 663; Buchanan v. City of Whitesboro, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 121, 38 S. W. 1003; Ex parte McNamara, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 363, 26 S. W. 506. And, so far as we are aware, it is the practice in this state to permit and entertain appeals from a conviction for a violation of city ordinances in virtually all the county courts in this state, following the above line of decisions.

However, our attention has been called to the case of Jarvis v. Taylor County (Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 334, wherein, in a well-considered and ably written opinion, Chief Justice Conner, of the Ft. Worth Court of Civil Appeals, has taken a different view of the law, and holds that an appeal will not lie from a conviction for a violation of a city ordinance in the corporation court to the county court, and we suppose the trial judge in this case was following that opinion.

We would feel loth to disturb the unbroken rule of decision of this court covering a number of years, and would not do so, unless fully convinced that the court was in error. However, having great respect for the court rendering the opinion in Jarvis v. Taylor County, supra, and especially for the opinion of the learned Chief Justice who wrote that opinion, we have again entered into a study of this question, with the view that, if we became convinced this court was in error, to frankly so say.

The provisions of the Constitution governing the jurisdiction of the county courts is found in sections 16 and 22, art. 5, of the Constitution. In section 16, the county court is specifically given appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising in the justice court; and, in section 22, the Legislature is given power to increase, diminish, or change the criminal jurisdiction of county courts. So the Legislature has full authority to confer jurisdiction on the county court to entertain appeals from the corporation court, and the question is: Has it done so?

There was formerly a conflict in the decisions of the courts of this state as to whether or not city courts could try criminal cases, for violation of laws of the state, and, in order to avoid this conflict, an amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1891, it being provided in section 1 of article 5, after naming certain courts:

"The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary, and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto."

Since the adoption of that provision of the Constitution, our Supreme Court and this court have been called upon to pass upon the amendment, and in Harris County v. Stewart, 91 Tex. 133, 41 S. W. 650, it was held that the Legislature might and had created a corporation court, with power and authority to enforce both laws of the state and city ordinances, and this holding was upheld by this court in Ex parte Abrams, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 120 S. W. 883, 18 Ann. Cas. 45. So it is now uniformly held that the corporation court is a valid court, with authority to try persons charged with offenses either for violation of city ordinances or infractions of the law of the state. I do not understand Chief Justice Conner to hold that, if one is tried in the corporation court for a violation of a state law, no appeal would lie to the county court; but his opinion seems limited to the...