$1,608.00 in U.S. Currency and 2008 Mazda, VIN 1YVHP80C385M37457 v. State
This text of $1,608.00 in U.S. Currency and 2008 Mazda, VIN 1YVHP80C385M37457 v. State ($1,608.00 in U.S. Currency and 2008 Mazda, VIN 1YVHP80C385M37457 v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-14-00066-CV
$1,608.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY AND 2008 MAZDA, VIN 1YVHP80C385M37457, Appellants
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 83560
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert Daugherty appeals from a default judgment in which the Sixth Judicial District
Court of Lamar County ordered forfeiture to the State of $1,608.00 in United States currency and
a 2008 Mazda automobile. Daugherty filed a motion with this Court asking us to order the
County Attorney of Lamar County not to dispose of the seized property until this appeal is
decided. 1 Instead of responding in this Court to Daugherty’s motion, the State filed with the trial
court a motion for new trial in the interest of justice. The trial court granted the motion and
ordered a new trial. If granting a new trial was within the trial court’s authority, this appeal must
be dismissed.
The judgment was signed July 22, 2014. The State’s motion for new trial was filed
September 3, 2014, well outside the expiration of the plenary authority of the trial court over its
judgment, unless that plenary power had been extended. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329(b).
Before the State’s motion for new trial had been filed, in fact, during the requisite thirty-
day time period for a motion for new trial, Daugherty had filed pleadings in which he asked in
several ways for the trial court to reconsider or correct its default judgment against him, based
largely on the failure of service of process on him. Although not labeled as motions for new
trial, Daugherty’s filings requested the type of relief available through a motion for new trial.
We interpret them as motions for new trial.
Daugherty’s first such post-trial pleading was filed August 4, 2014, thus extending the
plenary authority of the trial court to 105 days after the judgment, that is, to November 4, 2014.
1 In civil lawsuits, a judgment may be superseded as provided by Rule 24 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.2(a)(5).
2 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c), (e). The trial court’s order of September 3, 2014, granting a new
trial was therefore rendered while it had the authority to do so.
Because the judgment no longer exists, there is now no appealable order to support this
appeal. The motion to stay the disposal of the forfeited items is overruled as moot, as the State
has no authority to dispose of those items, and they will be the subject of the new trial granted by
the trial court.
We dismiss the appeal.
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: September 18, 2014 Date Decided: September 19, 2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
$1,608.00 in U.S. Currency and 2008 Mazda, VIN 1YVHP80C385M37457 v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/160800-in-us-currency-and-2008-mazda-vin-1yvhp80c3-texapp-2014.