Ricardo G. Castaneda v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 27, 2002
Docket01-02-00399-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Ricardo G. Castaneda v. State (Ricardo G. Castaneda 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.

Bluebook
Ricardo G. Castaneda v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Opinion issued June 27, 2002







In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________



NO. 01-02-00399-CR



RICARDO G. CASTANEDA, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 5313



MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ricardo G. Castaneda, was convicted by a jury in a City of Houston municipal court of speeding. The jury assessed punishment at a $100 fine.

Appellant appealed to Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 2. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00014(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The reporter's record of the trial and briefs were filed in the county court. The county court judge affirmed the municipal court judgment. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

The record and briefs from the county court have been filed in this Court and constitute the record and briefs in this appeal. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00027(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002). We find we have no jurisdiction over the appeal.

Unless the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which the conviction is based, we are without jurisdiction when the fine imposed by the county criminal court at law does not exceed $100. See Boyd v. State, 11 S.W.3d 325, 325 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.03 (Vernon Supp. 2002); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 30.00027(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002). The amount of appellant's fine did not exceed $100. We therefore examined the brief filed by appellant in the county criminal court at law. The brief alleged only that the charging instrument was tampered with illegally; no challenge to the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance was raised. We therefore have no jurisdiction over this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Schneider, and Justices Hedges and Nuchia.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

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

Related

§ 30.00014
Texas GV § 30.00014(a)
§ 30.00027
Texas GV § 30.00027(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ricardo G. Castaneda v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricardo-g-castaneda-v-state-texapp-2002.