MCGEE, EX PARTE WARREN v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: PD-0517-24
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0517-24

EX PARTE WARREN MCGEE, Appellant

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

On November 14, 2022, Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 16 (the “trial

court”), held appellant in contempt and sentenced him to deferred adjudication

community supervision for one year.

On January 31, 2023, appellant filed a writ of habeas corpus in the district court

(the “habeas court”). Appellant argued that his restraint in the contempt case was illegal

and that the contempt judgment was void because it was based upon constitutionally

insufficient notice and because deferred adjudication was not available in contempt cases.

On the same day, January 31, 2023, the trial court entered an order dismissing its

judgment of contempt. Appellant filed an amended application arguing that it was not clear that the trial court’s dismissal “had any legal effect” because it was questionable

whether it “can undo a final judgment a year after finding someone in contempt.”

On March 2, 2023, the habeas court held a hearing on appellant’s application. In

light of the dismissal by the trial court, the habeas court denied relief. Appellant filed a

notice of appeal from the habeas court’s denial of relief.

The court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ex parte McGee, No. 01-

23-00176-CR slip op. (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] March 28, 2024)(not designated for

publication). The court reasoned that because the cause against appellant had been

dismissed by the trial court, the premise underlying his habeas application was gone and

the legal issues rendered moot. The court also noted that appellant had provided no

authority in his habeas petition to support his argument that the trial court’s order

dismissing the judgment of contempt was without any legal effect, and further stated that

the court was aware of no such authority.

Appellant has now filed a petition for discretionary review in which he contends

that the court of appeals erred by declining to address the trial court’s jurisdiction to

dismiss the contempt judgment. Appellant also contends that the court of appeals should

have required briefing on the issue. We agree.

The trial court dismissed a judgment it had entered more than two months before.

In his habeas application, appellant questioned the legal effect of the trial court’s

dismissal and the parties discussed the issue at the hearing before the habeas court. The

question of jurisdiction was apparent from the record. Jurisdiction of the convicting court can generally be raised at any time. Moreover,

jurisdiction is a systemic requirement and reviewing courts are bound to address it

regardless of whether it is raised by the parties. See Skinner v. State, 484 S.W.3d 434, 437

(Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (“jurisdiction is a systemic requirement that appellate courts must

review regardless of whether the issue is raised by the parties”); Gallagher v. State, 690

S.W.2d 587, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)(“question of the jurisdiction of the convicting

court may be raised at any time”).

The court of appeals is allowed to “submit the case without briefing, if necessary

to do substantial justice to the parties.” TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1(a). Given that the court of

appeals dismissed the case after declining to address the jurisdictional issue because it

was not aware of any authority bearing on that issue, briefing was, in fact, necessary.

We grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the

court of appeals, and remand this cause to the court of appeals for proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

Delivered July 31, 2024 Do not publish