Bielamowicz v. State

Full title: PHILLIP BIELAMOWICZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jan 18, 2007

No. 05-06-01042-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 18, 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-06-01042-CR.

Opinion Filed January 18, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex. R. App. P. 47.

Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. MC06-A-4796-D.

Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MOLLY FRANCIS, Justice.

Phillip Bielamowicz was convicted in the Cedar Hill Municipal Court of violating a city ordinance and appealed by trial de novo to the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals. A jury found appellant guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at a fine of $77. Appellant appealed to this Court. For the following reasons, we conclude we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. Article 4.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides, as follows:

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 2005). In five issues appellant asserts: (1) the trial court erred in not dismissing or correcting the citation against him when appellant informed the court of the "misidentification"; (2) appellant did not flee the Fire Marshal and did not violate a city ordinance; (3) the Fire Marshal was asked to obtain a warrant, which he did, to conduct the inspection; (4) the Fire Marshal arrested appellant for one reason but stated a different reason on the citation; and (5) the Fire Marshal had no authority to act because he did not sign the oath of office. None of these issues challenge the constitutionality of the statute on which appellant's conviction is based. And, the fine assessed did not exceed $100. Accordingly, we conclude we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.