Opinion
No. 10-07-00173-CR
Opinion delivered and filed January 30, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas Trial, Court No. 0512592 CR. Reversed and remanded.
Before Chief Justice, GRAY, JUSTICE VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
OPINION
The State appeals the trial court's dismissal of the information charging Garza with issuance of a bad check, as a misdemeanor of Class C. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.41(a), (f) (Vernon Supp. 2007). We reverse. In the State's one issue, the State contends that the trial court erred in granting Garza's exception to the information, which exception contended that the information had been filed in a court lacking jurisdiction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 27.08(4), 27.09(1) (Vernon 2006). "[A] de novo review is . . . appropriate" in such cases, where we review "the sufficiency of a[n]" information, "a question of law," which "does not turn on an evaluation of the credibility and demeanor of a witness." State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); see Hernandez v. State, 161 S.W.3d 491, 500 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). An "appellate court reviewing a trial court ruling on a motion to dismiss must do so in light of the arguments before the trial court at the time it ruled." Wead v. State, 129 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (citing Dragoo v. State, 96 S.W.3d 308, 313 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)). Garza contends that the trial court, a statutory county court, lacked jurisdiction over the offense, a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine. Generally, the offense of issuance of a bad check is "a Class C misdemeanor." See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.41(f). "An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500." Id. § 12.23 (Vernon 2003). "A statutory county court has jurisdiction over all causes and proceedings, civil and criminal, original and appellate, prescribed by law for county courts." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 25.0003(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007). "The County Court has jurisdiction as provided by law." TEX. CONST. art. V, § 16. Generally, "a county court has exclusive original jurisdiction of misdemeanors other than misdemeanors involving official misconduct and cases in which the highest fine that may be imposed is $500 or less." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 26.045(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007). County courts "have original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors of which exclusive original jurisdiction is not given to the justice court, and when the fine to be imposed shall exceed five hundred dollars." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.07 (Vernon 2005). Justice courts "have original jurisdiction in criminal matters of misdemeanor cases punishable by fine only, . . . and such other jurisdiction as may be provided by law." TEX. CONST. art. V, § 19. Justices of the peace shall have original jurisdiction in criminal cases:
(1) punishable by fine only or punishable by:
(A) a fine; and
(B)as authorized by statute, a sanction not consisting of confinement or imprisonment; or
(2) arising under Chapter 106, Alcoholic Beverage Code, that do not include confinement as an authorized sanction.TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.11(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007); see TEX. ALCO. BEV. CODE ANN. §§ 106.01-106.15 (Vernon 2007) (minors). The State argues, "Since the legislature has not given justices of the peace exclusive jurisdiction over any category of criminal cases, the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the justice court over misdemeanors punishable by a fine." (Br. at 5 (quoting 40 GEORGE E. DIX ROBERT O. DAWSON, TEXAS PRACTICE: CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1.46 (2d ed. 2001)).) "The county court has concurrent original jurisdiction with justice courts and municipal courts in all prosecutions where a statute does not specifically exclude county court jurisdiction." Fouke v. State, 529 S.W.2d 772, 773 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975); accord Solon v. State, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 301, 306 (1878); Rodriguez v. State, 224 S.W.3d 783, 786 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007, no pet.) (issuance of bad check); see Skaggs v. State, 157 Tex. Crim. 195, 196, 247 S.W.2d 906, 906 (1952) (op. on reh'g); but see Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JC-246, at 2 (2000). Where "no statute excluded the county court's jurisdiction or provided for exclusive jurisdiction in a justice or municipal court . . ., jurisdiction in those courts was concurrent." Rodriguez at 786. "[N]o express exclusive authority or jurisdiction has been conferred, in any class of misdemeanors, upon justices' courts. . . ." Solon at 305; accord Rodriguez at 786. Garza concedes "that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held . . . that county courts and justice courts have concurrent jurisdiction over fine only offenses. . . ." (Br. at 2-3.) Garza does not point, moreover, to any grant of exclusive original jurisdiction over the offense with which Garza was charged to the justice courts. The trial court had jurisdiction over the offense with which Garza was charged. The trial court erred in granting Garza's plea to the jurisdiction. We sustain the State's issue. Having sustained the State's issue, we reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings.
Garza also argues in the alternative that the trial court had discretionary jurisdiction over the offense with which Garza was charged. First, Garza argues that statutory county courts must adopt rules for the "transfer . . . of . . . cases, subject to jurisdictional limitations of the . . . statutory county courts." See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.093(b)(1) (Vernon 2005); see id. (a)-(b) (Vernon 2005). But Garza does not point to any such rules adopted by the trial court. Second, Garza argues that the trial court could have declined jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Garza correctly notes, however, that "the doctrine of forum non conveniens has not been used for criminal cases." (Br. at 9.) Neither matter, moreover, was before the trial court at the time the trial court ruled.