State v. Rodriguez-Gomez

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
• Citation: State v. Rodriguez-Gomez, 716 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App. 2024)
• Docket Number: 04-23-00157-CR
• Decision Date: 14 February 2024
• Parties: The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Jonathan Jose RODRIGUEZ-GOMEZ, Appellee

716 S.W.3d 702

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v.Jonathan Jose RODRIGUEZ-GOMEZ, Appellee

No. 04-23-00157-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Delivered and Filed: February 14, 2024

From the County Court at Law No. 1, Webb County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2022CRB000729L1, Honorable Leticia Martinez, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT ATTORNEY: David L. Reuthinger Jr., Webb County District Attorney’s Office, 1110 Victoria, Ste. 401, Laredo, TX 78040, Albrecht Riepen, Webb County Public Defender’s Office, 1110 Washington St., Ste. 102, Laredo, TX 78040.

APPELLEE ATTORNEY: Jamal Sadat Muhammad, 2929 Weslayan St., #1908, Houston, TX 77027, Aron L. Israelite, Attorney at Law, 185 W F St., Ste. 100-K, San Diego, CA 92101.

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice, Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice, Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

OPINION

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

The State appeals the trial court’s order dismissing the information charging the appellee, Jonathan Jose Rodriguez-Gomez, with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. For the reasons set out below, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Background

On March 6, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) to initiate Operation Lone Star (“OLS”) and “devote additional law enforcement resources toward deterring illegal border crossing and protecting [ ] border communities.” He further directed “DPS to use available resources to enforce all applicable federal and state laws to prevent criminal activity along the border, including criminal trespassing, smuggling, and human trafficking, and to assist Texas counties in their efforts to address those criminal activities.”

As part of OLS, Rodriguez-Gomez, a noncitizen, was arrested in Webb County and charged by information with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass. The case was filed in Webb County Court at Law Number 1 and assigned cause number 2022CRB000729L1. Rodriguez-Gomez then filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus in district court, which was assigned cause number 2022CVJ001437D2.¹

On January 10, 2023, the district court issued an order stating as follows:

This Court conducted a hearing on JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ GOMEZ’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Having considered the application and the evidence presented, this Court holds that Mr. Rodriguez Gomez is entitled to relief on his claim of sex discrimination. He is “discharge[d]” and the information charging him with trespass in his criminal case is dismissed with prejudice. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.44. The underlying criminal cause number is 2022CRB000729L1 in Webb County.

On February 10, 2023, the county court held a hearing in cause number 2022CRB000729L1. At the hearing, Rodriguez-Gomez’s counsel and the court clerk informed the trial judge that the district court had dismissed the county court case with prejudice on January 10, 2023. The county court asked the State if it had appealed the district court’s order; the State responded that it did not know, but that regardless of whether the State had filed a notice of appeal, the county court still had to “take action on [the district court’s] advisory, I guess, dismissal,” because the district court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the case.

Rodriguez-Gomez filed a motion to dismiss later that same day, asking the county court to dismiss the case because the district court had granted his “equal protection writ based on a gender discrimination claim and ordered this case discharged and dismissed with prejudice.” As support for his motion, Rodriguez-Gomez attached a copy of the district court’s order to his motion.

On February 16, 2023, the county court issued the following order: “On this 16th day of February, having found sufficient cause, I GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This case [is] dismissed with prejudice.”

On February 24, 2023, the State filed a notice of appeal with the county court clerk, in cause number 2022CRB000729L1. In the notice, the State indicated that it “wishe[d] to appeal the trial court’s order of February 10, 2023, granting the Defendant’s writ/petition/motion for pretrial habeas corpus relief, as said order is an order dismissing a complaint and is appealable under Article 44.01(a)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Jurisdiction

[1] We must first ’determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bell v. State, 515 S.W.3d 900, 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (citing Henson v. State, 407 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), cert, denied, 571 U.S. 1141, 134 S.Ct. 934, 187 L.Ed.2d 804 (2014)); Escarcega v. State, 767 S.W.2d 806, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (Teague, J., dissenting) (“It is axiomatic in our law that, before a court of appeals decides an appeal, it must first determine whether it has jurisdiction over that case.”). Further, because it is not clear, from either the notice of appeal or the State’s brief, whether the State is attempting to appeal from the district court’s order in the habeas proceeding or the county court’s order in the underlying criminal case,² we will consider whether we have jurisdiction over an appeal from either case.

Appeal from District Court’s Grant of Habeas Relief

[2, 3] “To invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction over an appeal, … the appellant must give timely and proper notice of appeal.” Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). More specifically, when the State desires to appeal from a trial court order that dismisses an information in a criminal case, the State must file a notice of appeal not “later than the 20th day after the date on which the order … to be appealed is entered by the court.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(b) (requiring State to file notice of appeal “within 20 days after the day the trial court enters the order, ruling, or sentence to be appealed”); State v. Wachtendorf, 475 S.W.3d 895, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). We have no power to consider and must dismiss any appeal in which our jurisdiction is not properly invoked. See Woods, 68 S.W.3d at 669; White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Olivo v. State, 918 SW.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (quoting Ex parte Caldwell, 383 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964)).

[4] Here, the district court issued an order on January 10, 2023, in cause number 2022CVJ001437D2, stating “the information charging [Rodriguez-Gomez] with trespass in his criminal case is dismissed with prejudice…. The underlying criminal cause number is 2022CRB0007L1 in Webb County.” The State’s notice of appeal, which, again, was filed in cause number 2022CRB0007L1, was not filed, however, until February 24, 2023—forty-five days after the district court issued its order. As a result, the State’s notice of appeal was not timely filed with regard to the district court’s order granting habeas relief, even if we could allow for the notice of appeal filed in cause number 2022CRB007L1 to apply in cause number 2022CVJ00143D2.

Accordingly, to the extent the State attempts to appeal from the district court’s order in the habeas proceeding, we conclude that the State failed to invoke our jurisdiction and we have no power to act other than to dismiss the appeal.³ See Woods, 68 S.W.3d at 669; White, 61 S.W.3d at 428; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523.

Appeal from County Court’s Order of Dismissal

[5-7] “A court has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction.” Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523; see Davis v. State, 502 S.W.3d 803, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (Yeary, J., concurring) (“A court of appeals always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.”). Jurisdiction is a systemic requirement that must be addressed by the court, even if not raised by the parties. See Bell, 515 S.W.3d at 901; State v. Guevara, 172 S.W.3d 646, 647 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.); State v. Morse, 903 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no pet.); Solis v. State, 890 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, no pet.). Further, an appellate court may address the propriety of a lower court’s exercise of jurisdiction. See Ex parte Enriquez, 227 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. ref’d); Guevara, 172 S.W.3d at 647-48 & n.l (vacating county court’s judgment in appeal from municipal court because county court did not acquire jurisdiction); Morse, 903 S.W.2d at 102; see also Ex parte Schmidt, 109 S.W.3d 480, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that appellate court at least had jurisdiction over the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction).

[8] Here, the county court issued an order on February 16, 2023, granting Rodriguez-Gomez’s motion to dismiss and stating, “This case [is] dismissed with prejudice.” The State had the right to appeal from this order, pursuant to article 44.01(a)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, because the order dismissed the information, and its notice of appeal, filed on February 24, 2023, was timely because it was filed within twenty days of the order. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(b); State v. Garcia, 638 S.W.3d 679, 681-82, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (citing State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); quoting Alvarez v. Eighth Court of Appeals of Tex., 977 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). As a result, the State properly invoked, at minimum, our jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction and to determine the county court’s jurisdiction. We will therefore determine whether the county court had jurisdiction to dismiss the information against Rodriguez-Gomez and whether we have jurisdiction to review the county court’s order.

A. Whether the County Court Had Jurisdiction to Dismiss the Information

The State charged Rodriguez-Gomez by information with the misdemeanor offense of criminal trespass on August 1, 2022. The State filed the information with the Webb County Clerk, who assigned the case to the County Court at Law Number 1 under cause number 202...