Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Jefferson v. State

Jefferson v. State

751 S.W.2d 502, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89, 1988 WL 44832
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 11, 1988
Docket0327-85
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 751 S.W.2d 502 (Jefferson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jefferson v. State, 751 S.W.2d 502, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89, 1988 WL 44832 (Tex. 1988).

Opinions

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 The El Paso Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, sustained appellant’s single point of error which alleged that the trial court should have granted the appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment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 [503]*50312 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

William Paul Hunt and ADE-WIFCO Steel Products Inc. ("ADE"), and Others Similarly Situated v. City of Diboll, Texas, John McClain, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Diboll, Steve Baker, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Diboll, Gerry Boren, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of City of Diboll
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2017
Fournier, Curtis
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Dowden, Christopher Toby
Texas Supreme Court, 2015
Karenev v. State
281 S.W.3d 428 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Karenev, Nikolai Ivanov
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009
Rodriguez v. State
71 S.W.3d 800 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Alejandro Rodriguez v. State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
Alexander v. Johnson
217 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Texas, 2001)
Sullivan v. State
986 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Ravenbark v. State
942 S.W.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Saenz v. State
843 S.W.2d 24 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Goins v. State
841 S.W.2d 527 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Janecka v. State
823 S.W.2d 232 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Serrano v. State
804 S.W.2d 543 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Briggs v. State
789 S.W.2d 918 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Lapasnick v. State
784 S.W.2d 366 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Ex Parte Danziger
775 S.W.2d 475 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Ex Parte Crispen
777 S.W.2d 103 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Escarcega v. State
767 S.W.2d 806 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Casares v. State
768 S.W.2d 298 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
751 S.W.2d 502, 1988 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89, 1988 WL 44832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferson-v-state-texcrimapp-1988.