Jefferson v. State, No. 0327-85
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | ONION; DUNCAN; CLINTON |
| Citation | 751 S.W.2d 502 |
| Parties | Alvin A. JEFFERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 0327-85 |
Page 502
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
En Banc.
William R. Copeland, El Paso, for appellant.
Steve W. Simmons, Dist. Atty., and Matthew Dekoatz, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., and Alfred Walker, First Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
ONION, Presiding Judge.
A jury convicted appellant of committing the offense of felony theft, and also assessed punishment at four years' imprisonment and a fine of $5,000.00. The El Paso Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, sustained appellant's single point of error which alleged that the trial court should have granted the appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment under the Speedy Trial Act, Article 32A.02, V.A.C.C.P. Jefferson v. State (Tex.App.-El Paso, No. 08-84-00096-CR, delivered January 30, 1985).
We granted the State's petition for discretionary review, which alleges that the Speedy Trial Act is unconstitutional because (1) the Act is vague; (2) the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine; and (3) the caption to the Act is defective.
A majority of this Court recently declared Article 32A.02, supra, unconstitutional and void in its entirety. Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). The holding in Meshell announced that by enacting the Speedy Trial Act the Legislature had violated the separation of powers doctrine under Article II, § 1 of the Texas Constitution. Meshell's motion for leave to file a motion for rehearing was denied November 4, 1987. An unconstitutional statute is void from its inception and cannot provide a basis for any right or relief. See
Page 503
12 Tex.Jur.3d, Constitutional Law, § 41, at 548 (and cases in n. 33 thereof). Furthermore, the caption issue has been rendered moot, since Article III, § 35, was recently amended to make the Legislature solely responsible for complying with caption requirements. See Baggett v. State, 722 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex.Cr.App.1987); Meshell, supra, at 251.The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for consideration of appellant's remaining points of error.
McCORMICK and WHITE, JJ., concur in the result.
DUNCAN, Judge, dissenting.
The majority reverses the holding of the court of appeals which sustained the appellant's complaint that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment pursuant to the Texas Speedy Trial Act, Art. 32A.02, V.A.C.C.P. The basis of the majority's opinion is Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), which held that Art. 32.02A, supra, was unconstitutional and void in its entirety as it violated the Separation of Powers provision of the Texas Constitution as set out in Article II, § 1. I dissent.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Johnson, CIV.A. H-99-3441.
...statute upon which the revocation of his parole was based. See Hiett, 415 F.2d at 666; Reyes, 753 S.W.2d at 383-84; Jefferson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 502, 502-03 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Cartier, 58 S.W.3d 756, 758. Having been declared unconstitutional, the stalking statute was "void from its inc......
-
Karenev v. State, PD-0822-08.
...at 553 (citing Reyes and Jefferson). See Reyes v. State, 753 S.W.2d 382, 382-84 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988)(plurality op.); Jefferson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 502, 502-03 (Tex.Crim. App.1988)(lead opinion is a plurality, but dissent appears to agree with the proposition that an unconstitutional law af......
-
Ex parte Crispen, 70755
...of error of constitutional magnitude, "Rose error," see Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), also see Jefferson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), which error was found in Rose to be of constitutional magnitude, could be raised for the first time on direct appeal, even ......
-
Sullivan v. State, 05-96-01472-CR
...statute, however, is void from its inception and generally cannot provide a basis for any right or relief. Jefferson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 502, 502-03 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). 5 Therefore, as did the court in Byrum, we recognize that consideration of the statute as applied to appellant's conduct......