William Ellis Matyastik v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 10, 1992
• Docket: 10-92-00006-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matyastik v. State

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-92-006-CR

     WILLIAM ELLIS MATYASTIK,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 903936 CR2

                                                                                                    

O P I N I O N

                                                                                                    

      William Ellis Matyastik was convicted by the municipal court of the city of Waco of violating a city ordinance. On appeal to the County Court at Law, he was convicted by a jury. The jury's verdict, the judgment, and the sentence uniformly assessed Matyastik a fine of $100. He appeals on seven points, including six complaining of the court's denial of his motion for a new trial and one alleging that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

      Article 4.03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states:

The Courts of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of their respective districts in all criminal cases except those in which the death penalty has been assessed. This Article shall not be so construed as to embrace any case which has been appealed from any inferior court to the county court, the county criminal court, or county court at law, in which the fine imposed by the county court, the county criminal court or county court at law does not exceed one hundred dollars, unless the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance on which the conviction is based.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 4.03 (Vernon Supp. 1992).

      Review by this court is not available. The fine assessed by the court did not exceed $100, and Matyastik does not assert that the ordinance on which his conviction is based is unconstitutional. Thus, we have no jurisdiction. See id.; Lopez v. State, 649 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1983, no pet.).

      The State's motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

 

                                                                                 BILL VANCE

                                                                                 Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

          Justice Cummings, and

          Justice Vance

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 10, 1992

Do not publish

nt-family:"CG Times";text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:2.0pt'>

  Relators seek a writ of mandamus from this Court directing Respondents to vacate a show-cause order issued in connection with a contempt motion filed by Walter G. Mize and alleging that Relators had failed to comply with a temporary injunction which this Court dissolved in an interlocutory appeal.  Because the appeal of the temporary injunction is now pending in the Supreme Court, the trial court has no jurisdiction to enforce the order.  Thus, we will conditionally grant the writ.

          The Honorable D. Wayne Bridewell, Judge of the 249th District Court of Johnson County, granted Mize’s request for a temporary injunction in the underlying proceeding.  Relators perfected an interlocutory appeal to this Court.  In a memorandum opinion, we reversed the order granting the temporary injunction, dissolved the injunction, and remanded the cause to the trial court with instructions to dismiss Mize’s claims for want of jurisdiction.  First Sav. Bank, FSB v. United Heritage Corp., No. 10-03-00118-CV, slip op. at 6, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 4345, at *7-8 (Tex. App.—Waco May 12, 2004, pet. filed) (mem. op.).

          Mize filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court, which remains pending.  Mize then filed the contempt motion in the trial court, complaining that Relators have failed to comply with the temporary injunction.  On the same date, the Honorable William C. Bosworth, Jr., Judge of the 413th District Court of Johnson County, issued an order requiring Relators to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt.  See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.303(a) (Vernon 2004).

          Relators contend that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to issue the show-cause order because of the pendency of the appeal.

          For appealable orders in the nature of an injunction, in which the validity of the order alleged to have been violated is itself in issue in the appeal, the appellate court alone is vested with jurisdiction to enforce the injunctive provisions by contempt.

Schultz v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps., 810 S.W.2d 738, 740 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (footnote omitted); In re Taylor, 39 S.W.3d 406, 409-10 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, orig. proceeding); In re Goldblatt, 38 S.W.3d 802, 804 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, orig. proceeding).  Under the rationale of Schultz and its progeny, we agree with Relators’ contention.

          Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause order, Relators need not show that they have no other adequate legal remedy.  In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re McGuire, 134 S.W.3d 406, 410 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, orig. proceeding).

          Although Relators name as Respondents both Judge Bridewell, the elected judge of the 249th District Court, and Judge Bosworth, who sat as judge of the 249th District Court under the exchange of benches provision of the Government Code, Judge Bridewell is the proper respondent in this case.  See In re Dilley Indep. Sch. Dist., 23 S.W.3d 189, 190 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, orig. proceeding); Hoggard v. Snodgrass, 770 S.W.2d 577, 588 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, orig. proceeding).

The trial court had no jurisdiction to enforce the temporary injunction because of the pendency of the appeal.  Accordingly, we conditionally grant the requested writ of mandamus.  The writ will issue if Judge Bridewell fails to advise this Court in writing within fourteen days after the date of this opinion that he has vacated the show-cause order.

                                                          FELIPE REYNA

                                                          Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Writ conditionally granted

Opinion delivered and filed September 15, 2004

[OT06]