MAJORITY OPINION ON REHEARING
PAUL C. MURPHY, Chief Justice.
We deny appellant’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc filed September 6, 2000, withdraw our Majority Opinion filed August 24, 2000, and substitute this Majority Opinion on Rehearing.
Texas Department of Public Safety appeals from a judgment granted in favor of Thomas Ivan Kreipe in his suit regarding the department’s failure to grant a license to carry a concealed handgun. Because Kreipe was convicted of a felony as defined by statute, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment in favor of the department.
I. Background
In 1970, Kreipe pleaded guilty to the felony offense of possession of marijuana, less than half an ounce, and received five years’ deferred adjudication probation. In September 1973, after Kreipe successfully completed the terms of his plea agreement, his indictment was dismissed, and his conviction set aside. More than twenty years later, Kreipe applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. The department denied Kreipe’s application on grounds that Kreipe had a felony conviction on his record. After the case was heard in Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 2, Place 1, the court entered an affirmative finding for the department, denying Kreipe’s application for issuance of a license. Kreipe appealed the decision to a county court at law for a trial de novo. After hearing testimony, the court by order dated November 30, 1998, rendered a negative finding against the department in favor of Kreipe and ordered the department to process Kreipe’s application for issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun.
II. Discussion
A. Plea to the Jurisdiction
Initially, we note that we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Tune [336]*336v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358 (Tex.2000).
In the department’s first point of error, it complains the trial court erred by denying its plea to the jurisdiction. The department argues that Kreipe failed to comply with the statute’s notice requirements in seeking the trial de novo in the county court at law and that this failure deprived the court below of jurisdiction.
The statute allows a party adversely affected by a justice court’s ruling to appeal to a county court at law. See Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 229, § 1, 1995 Tex.Gen.Laws 1998, 2003 (repealed 1997).1 The party appeals by filing, within thirty days after the justice court’s ruling, a petition in a county court at law in the county in which the appellant resides. See id. The appellant must send, by certified mail, a copy of the appellant’s petition, certified by the clerk of the court in which the petition is filed, to the appropriate division of the Department of Public Safety at its Austin headquarters. See id.
The department alleges, in its “Plea to the Jurisdiction,” that it received an uncer-tified copy of the petition and that the copy sent by the appellant did not contain a cause number, but bore a “nearly illegible ‘received’ stamp that did not indicate the entity ‘receiving’ the document.” The department argues that this failure to comply with the statute deprived the court below of jurisdiction and that the suit should have been dismissed.
A party appeals the justice court’s ruling by filing a petition in the county court at law within thirty days after the justice court’s ruling. This filing perfects the appeal and vests jurisdiction with the county court at law. Although the department denominates its pleading a “Plea to the Jurisdiction,” the department seems to complain, rather, about faulty notice or faulty service. Where a party complains of defective service, the proper vehicle to address the shortcoming is a motion to quash. See Wheat v. Toone, 700 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.1985). The remedy for defective service is additional time to answer the suit. See Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 203 (Tex.1985); also see Tex.R.Civ.P. 122. Even if the court below should have granted the motion to quash, the court would not have dismissed the cause but would have given the department additional time to answer. The department complains of nothing that can lead to reversible error. See Tex. R.App.P. 44.1(a).
If, on the other hand, we construe the department’s plea as a complaint that the lack of proper notice deprived the court below of subject-matter jurisdiction, the department complains of nothing that cannot be cured by repleading, amendment, or correction. See Barto Watson, Inc. v. City of Houston, 998 S.W.2d 637, 641 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (if pleading defect curable by amendment, it should be challenged by special exceptions or by motion to abate).
Moreover, courts generally determine subject-matter jurisdiction based on the plaintiffs pleadings. Where lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not apparent from the pleadings, the party opposing jurisdiction must prove its allegations. See Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 448-49 (Tex.1996). Here, nothing in Kreipe’s petition negates subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate record contains only a copy of the original petition filed by Kreipe with the court below. The department has presented no evidence — no hearing record, no affidavit, no verified pleading — to support its allegations that Kreipe gave technically deficient notice. Nothing in the appellate record demonstrates the complained-of notice deficiencies. The department has failed to [337]*337carry its burden of showing any failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Even if we were to construe the statutory requirement of certified notice as jurisdictional, see Ex parte Progreso Indep. Sch. Dist., 650 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, writ refd n.r.e.) (requirement that any person intending to contest election give written notice within 30 days of return day of election is mandatory and may not be waived by parties because it is jurisdictional), the statute on its face does not establish a deadline for giving notice to the department. Thus where, as here, the department complains of such defective notice, nothing in the statute prevents the plaintiff from correcting the defect. The requirement for certified notice seems, instead, to be not jurisdictional, but informational. See Honts v. Shaw, 975 S.W.2d 816, 820 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (election contestants’ failure to timely notify secretary of state, as required by statute, did not deprive trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over election contest; statute’s purpose was to provide notice to secretary for informational purposes only). We overrule the department’s first point of error.
B. Felony
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MAJORITY OPINION ON REHEARING
PAUL C. MURPHY, Chief Justice.
We deny appellant’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc filed September 6, 2000, withdraw our Majority Opinion filed August 24, 2000, and substitute this Majority Opinion on Rehearing.
Texas Department of Public Safety appeals from a judgment granted in favor of Thomas Ivan Kreipe in his suit regarding the department’s failure to grant a license to carry a concealed handgun. Because Kreipe was convicted of a felony as defined by statute, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment in favor of the department.
I. Background
In 1970, Kreipe pleaded guilty to the felony offense of possession of marijuana, less than half an ounce, and received five years’ deferred adjudication probation. In September 1973, after Kreipe successfully completed the terms of his plea agreement, his indictment was dismissed, and his conviction set aside. More than twenty years later, Kreipe applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. The department denied Kreipe’s application on grounds that Kreipe had a felony conviction on his record. After the case was heard in Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 2, Place 1, the court entered an affirmative finding for the department, denying Kreipe’s application for issuance of a license. Kreipe appealed the decision to a county court at law for a trial de novo. After hearing testimony, the court by order dated November 30, 1998, rendered a negative finding against the department in favor of Kreipe and ordered the department to process Kreipe’s application for issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun.
II. Discussion
A. Plea to the Jurisdiction
Initially, we note that we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Tune [336]*336v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358 (Tex.2000).
In the department’s first point of error, it complains the trial court erred by denying its plea to the jurisdiction. The department argues that Kreipe failed to comply with the statute’s notice requirements in seeking the trial de novo in the county court at law and that this failure deprived the court below of jurisdiction.
The statute allows a party adversely affected by a justice court’s ruling to appeal to a county court at law. See Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 229, § 1, 1995 Tex.Gen.Laws 1998, 2003 (repealed 1997).1 The party appeals by filing, within thirty days after the justice court’s ruling, a petition in a county court at law in the county in which the appellant resides. See id. The appellant must send, by certified mail, a copy of the appellant’s petition, certified by the clerk of the court in which the petition is filed, to the appropriate division of the Department of Public Safety at its Austin headquarters. See id.
The department alleges, in its “Plea to the Jurisdiction,” that it received an uncer-tified copy of the petition and that the copy sent by the appellant did not contain a cause number, but bore a “nearly illegible ‘received’ stamp that did not indicate the entity ‘receiving’ the document.” The department argues that this failure to comply with the statute deprived the court below of jurisdiction and that the suit should have been dismissed.
A party appeals the justice court’s ruling by filing a petition in the county court at law within thirty days after the justice court’s ruling. This filing perfects the appeal and vests jurisdiction with the county court at law. Although the department denominates its pleading a “Plea to the Jurisdiction,” the department seems to complain, rather, about faulty notice or faulty service. Where a party complains of defective service, the proper vehicle to address the shortcoming is a motion to quash. See Wheat v. Toone, 700 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.1985). The remedy for defective service is additional time to answer the suit. See Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 203 (Tex.1985); also see Tex.R.Civ.P. 122. Even if the court below should have granted the motion to quash, the court would not have dismissed the cause but would have given the department additional time to answer. The department complains of nothing that can lead to reversible error. See Tex. R.App.P. 44.1(a).
If, on the other hand, we construe the department’s plea as a complaint that the lack of proper notice deprived the court below of subject-matter jurisdiction, the department complains of nothing that cannot be cured by repleading, amendment, or correction. See Barto Watson, Inc. v. City of Houston, 998 S.W.2d 637, 641 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (if pleading defect curable by amendment, it should be challenged by special exceptions or by motion to abate).
Moreover, courts generally determine subject-matter jurisdiction based on the plaintiffs pleadings. Where lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not apparent from the pleadings, the party opposing jurisdiction must prove its allegations. See Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 448-49 (Tex.1996). Here, nothing in Kreipe’s petition negates subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate record contains only a copy of the original petition filed by Kreipe with the court below. The department has presented no evidence — no hearing record, no affidavit, no verified pleading — to support its allegations that Kreipe gave technically deficient notice. Nothing in the appellate record demonstrates the complained-of notice deficiencies. The department has failed to [337]*337carry its burden of showing any failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Even if we were to construe the statutory requirement of certified notice as jurisdictional, see Ex parte Progreso Indep. Sch. Dist., 650 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, writ refd n.r.e.) (requirement that any person intending to contest election give written notice within 30 days of return day of election is mandatory and may not be waived by parties because it is jurisdictional), the statute on its face does not establish a deadline for giving notice to the department. Thus where, as here, the department complains of such defective notice, nothing in the statute prevents the plaintiff from correcting the defect. The requirement for certified notice seems, instead, to be not jurisdictional, but informational. See Honts v. Shaw, 975 S.W.2d 816, 820 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (election contestants’ failure to timely notify secretary of state, as required by statute, did not deprive trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over election contest; statute’s purpose was to provide notice to secretary for informational purposes only). We overrule the department’s first point of error.
B. Felony
In its second point of error, the department complains that because Kreipe has been convicted of a felony, the trial court erred by finding in Kreipe’s favor.
The construction to be given a statute is a question of law. See Wilburn v. State, 824 S.W.2d 755, 759 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, no writ). When interpreting a statute, we try to give effect to legislative intent. See Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex.1999). We look first to the plain and common meaning of the statute’s words. See id. If the meaning of the statutory language is unambiguous, we adopt, with few exceptions, the interpretation supported by the plain meaning of the provision’s words and terms. See id. Further, if a statute is unambiguous, we must not use rules of construction or other extrinsic aids to create ambiguity. See id. at 865-66.
Only a person who has not been convicted of a felony is eligible for a license to carry a concealed weapon. See Act of May 16,1995, 74th Leg, R.S, ch. 229, § 1, 1995 Tex.Gen.Laws 1998, 1999 (repealed 1997).2 A “felony” is any offense so designated by law or if confinement for one year or more in a penitentiary is affixed to the offense as a possible punishment. See id. “Convicted” means an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication whether the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. See id.
Our state Supreme Court has held that the plain language of the act bars an individual from obtaining a license where, after the individual is convicted of a felony, the individual’s sentence is subsequently probated and the individual is discharged from community supervision. See Tune, 23 S.W.3d at 363. That court also has determined that where a party pleaded guilty to a felony, was placed on five years’ probation, completed probation, was granted a new trial, and had the case against him dismissed that party remained a person who had been convicted of a felony and was not eligible for a concealed-handgun license. See Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. McLendon, No. 99-0268, 2000 WL 1335871 (Tex. Sept. 14, 2000) (per curiam).
Here, Kreipe argues that the evidence shows he was placed on deferred adjudication for possession of marijuana, less that half an ounce. Under article 725b of the 1925 Penal Code, in effect at the time of his arrest, possession of less than half an [338]*338ounce of marijuana was a felony. By the time Kreipe applied for the concealed-handgun license, however, possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana was a class B misdemeanor. See Tex.Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121 (Vernon Supp. 2000). Kreipe argues that when the Legislature enacted the concealed-handgun law in 1995, lawmakers intended to bar concealed-handgun licenses only to those persons committing felonies under the criminal law then in effect. Kreipe argues that the lawmakers did not intend to bar licenses to individuals in his position, with a felony conviction for an act that a later legislature downgraded to a misdemeanor.
As evidence of legislative intent, Kreipe offered the testimony of state Sen. Jerry Patterson, chief sponsor of the 1995 handgun legislation. Patterson testified that the legislators had written the licensing statute with the 1995 criminal law in mind and that lawmakers did not intend to bar licenses to individuals in Kreipe’s position. The intent of an individual legislator, even a statute’s principal author, is at most persuasive authority, resembling the comments of any learned scholar of the subject. See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 923 (Tex.1993). The individual legislator’s intent is not legislative history controlling the construction to be given a statute. See id.
Here, the statute plainly uses the term “felony” and further stipulates the “conviction” includes deferred adjudication. Had the Legislature intended to bar licenses only to individuals convicted of felonies as defined by the criminal law as it existed at the time of enactment of the licensing law, the Legislature could have done so. Construing the statute in a manner to exclude people in Kreipe’s position does lead to some odd results. For example, Kreipe— who after possessing a small amount of marijuana avoided further trouble with the law for more than twenty years — is barred from obtaining a license. Another individual, who today commits the same act but is convicted of a misdemeanor, would be eligible for a license after five years. See Tex.Gov’t Code Ann. § 411.172(a)(8) (Vernon 1998). Thus an individual who possesses a small amount of marijuana and is law abiding for five years may obtain a license while Kreipe, who possessed an identical amount of marijuana and was subsequently law abiding for a greater period of time, is denied a licence. Nevertheless, we may not rewrite the statute’s plain language. If the Legislature wishes to allow individuals in Kreipe’s position to obtain concealed-handgun licenses, it is free to do so. The trial court erred in entering a negative finding against the department. We sustain the department’s second point of error.
III. Conclusion
Having overruled the department’s first point of error and sustained its second point, we reverse the judgment of the court below and render judgment for the department that Kreipe is not eligible for a concealed-handgun license.