Miller v. State
Decision Date | 01 December 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 350-91,350-91 |
Citation | 866 S.W.2d 243 |
Parties | Alvin R. MILLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Frank B. McGregor and J. Dwight Carmichael, Hillsboro, for appellant.
Patrick S. Dohoney, County Atty., Hillsboro, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
A jury convicted appellant of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and assessed punishment at thirty days confinement in the county jail, probated for twenty-four months, and a $2,000 fine, probated to $1,000. See TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6701l-1(b) & (c)(1) & (2). The suspension of appellant's driver's license was also probated. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Miller v. State, No. 10-89-184-CR (Tex.App.--Waco Dec. 27, 1990). We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in overruling appellant's challenge to the appointment of a special judge. See TEX.R.APP. P. 200(c)(1) & (2). We will reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
On December 19, 1987, appellant was arrested for DWI. On the criminal docket sheet, a notation dated April 14, 1989 states: "Allen Place appointed special judge on motion of the court as per article [sic] 26.022 government code." 1 On April 14, 1989, a docket notice was sent to both parties, stating that a jury trial was set for May 15, 1989, that all pre-trial motions would be heard on that day, and that Allen Place was appointed the special judge to hear the case. On May 15, 1989, appellant filed a "motion to challenge jurisdiction of jurist to preside," alleging that the appointment of the special judge did not comply with section 26.022. 2 The trial court overruled the motion. 3 On appeal to the Tenth Court of Appeals, appellant argued that the appropriate provisions governing the appointment of the special judge are articles 30.03 through 30.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, 4 but even under section 26.022 of the Texas Government Code the appointment was improper. The Court of Appeals held that appellant waived his right to complain of the appointment, and that appellant's motion was properly overruled on the merits under section 26.022 of the Texas Government Code. Miller, slip op. at 5-6. Appellant contends (1) the decision of the court of appeals conflicts with Williams v. State, 677 S.W.2d 584 (Tex.App.--Austin 1984, no pet.), and (2) he did not waive his right to complain.
In Williams, the State, in order to salvage the conviction, argued that the appointment of the special judge was made pursuant to TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 1933a (now TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 26.022) rather than TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. arts. 30.03 through 30.05. The Third Court of Appeals rejected the State's argument and held, that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it would not presume that the special judge was appointed for any reason aside from those listed in TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 30.03. Williams, 677 S.W.2d at 587-88. The record in Williams was silent as to the statutory authority for the appointment of the special judge. Here, however, the record affirmatively reflects that the special judge was appointed pursuant to section 26.022 of the Texas Government Code. Therefore, Williams is distinguishable.
The State asserts that appellant waived his right to complain of the appointment because of noncompliance with article 28.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Alternatively, the State also argues that quo warranto is the exclusive means to contest the appointment of a special judge. Article 28.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that certain preliminary matters are waived if not raised or filed seven days before the pre-trial hearing. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 28.01, § 2. We need not decide today whether the time limitations in article 28.01 apply to a motion challenging the appointment of a special judge because it appears from the record that the trial court overruled the motion on the merits. 5 In this case, appellant objected to the appointment of the special judge before trial; therefore, appellant did not waive the right to challenge the appointment of the special judge on appeal. 6 See Janecka v. State, 823 S.W.2d 232, 243-44 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (op. on reh'g) (State waived objection to appointment of special master by failing to object at the time of appointment); McFarland v. State, 834 S.W.2d 481, 486 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.) (defendant waived objection to appointment of special judge by failing to object at time of appointment).
The State also argues that a quo warranto proceeding is the only means to contest the appointment of a special judge. See Keen v. State, 626 S.W.2d 309, 311-12 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Archer v. State, 607 S.W.2d 539, 543-44 (Tex.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 908, 101 S.Ct. 3037, 69 L.Ed.2d 410 (1981). We disagree. A quo warranto proceeding is available if "a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or an office...." TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 66.001(1). In Keen and Archer, this Court held that a quo warranto proceeding was the proper procedure for attacking the authority of a municipal court judge holding office under color of title. Quo warranto is also the only means to challenge the authority of a duly-elected district judge or an appointed retired district judge. See Ex parte Lefors, 171 Tex.Crim. 229, 347 S.W.2d 254 (1961); Tart v. State, 642 S.W.2d 244, 245-46 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1982). However, special judges, unlike duly-elected judges or retired judges, are not office holders subject to quo warranto. A duly-elected judge or retired judge is a judge in his or her own right. A special judge, on the other hand, is a person who serves as a judge in a particular case, but who is otherwise not a judge.
Appellant also contends the appointment of the special judge did not comply with section 26.022 of the Texas Government Code because (1) the appointment was for several cases, instead of one; (2) a written motion regarding the appointment was not filed; (3) he did not receive notice of a hearing or a hearing on the appointment; and (4) he did not agree to the appointment. 7 We need not decide appellant's first and second contentions because appellant's third and fourth contentions have merit.
Although appellant was entitled to a hearing on the appointment of the special judge under TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 26.022(b), the record does not reflect that a hearing was held. 8 Because "the clear intent of the statute is for the attorneys to have an opportunity to agree on a special judge before one is appointed by the county judge[,]" 9 the hearing contemplated by section 26.022(b) is a hearing before the county judge to consider who will be appointed the special judge. This is different than a pre-trial hearing before the special judge to resolve pre-trial matters. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 28.01. And, the record does not reflect that appellant was afforded the opportunity to agree to the appointment of the special judge. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 26.022(c)(2). Nor does the record reflect that the court considered the recommendations of the court's attorneys. See id. § 26.028 (). The appointment of Allen Place as the special judge was not in compliance with TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 26.022 & 26.028, and constituted error.
Having found error, we must reverse the conviction unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to appellant's conviction or punishment. TEX.R.APP. P. 81(b)(2). Of course, not all errors are subject to a determination of harm under rule 81(b)(2). 10 Certain kinds of error "cannot be subjected to a harm analysis in any meaningful manner because the record will not reveal any concrete data from which an appellate court can meaningfully gauge or quantify the effect of the error." Sodipo v. State, 815 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) ( ). "The distinctive characteristic of these violations is that it is extremely difficult to know whether they might have affected the outcome, or the likelihood that they have influenced the outcome is so strong that it is not worth expending the judicial resources necessary to evaluate the effect of the error in particular cases." Id. at 554-55 (footnote and citations omitted). This reasoning equally applies to the appointment of a special judge in a manner that fails to comply with statutory authority. "A determination of harm in this context is virtually impossible." Morrison v. State, 845 S.W.2d 882, 889 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).
Accordingly, the appointment of a special judge not in compliance with statutory authority is not the type of error that we can meaningfully analyze under TEX.R.APP. P. 81(b)(2); therefore, we hold such error is not subject to a harm analysis under rule 81(b)(2). See Reed v. State, 55 Tex.Crim. 137, 114 S.W. 834 (1908) ( ).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the Hill County Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, J., not participating.
1 Section 26.022 of the Texas Government Code provides:
(a) The county judge for good cause may at any time appoint a special judge with respect to any pending civil or criminal matter.
(b) The special judge may be appointed on motion of the court or on motion of any counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fain v. State
...have not been deemed to be void, but voidable." See Davis, 956 S.W.2d at 559 (emphasis added). The court cited Miller v. State, 866 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), a case in which the defendant argued that because the procedures for appointing a special judge 5 were not followed, the specia......
-
Rivera v. State
...1.051(e) constitutes error. See Rojas v. State, 943 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (citing Miller v. State, 866 S.W.2d 243, 247 n. 10 (Tex. Crim.App. 1993)). However, this error is subject to a harm analysis. Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922, 928-29 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). We......
-
Colomb v. State, No. 10-08-00039-CR (Tex. App. 4/29/2009)
...question of a judge who is disqualified as a matter of law which can be raised for the first time on appeal. See Miller v. State, 866 S.W.2d 243, 246 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Ex parte Vivier, 699 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Further, we are not presented with a question of lac......
-
Rojas v. State
...art. 1.051(e) (Vernon Supp.1997). When article 1.051(e) is violated, such violation constitutes error. See Miller v. State, 866 S.W.2d 243, 247 n. 10 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). An appellant has the burden on appeal to see that a sufficient record is presented to show error requiring reversal. TEX......