Summary
observing that filing fees and other court costs could not establish the amount in controversy, and dismissing appeal from denial of nondisclosure order because the record did not otherwise establish it
Summary of this case from Ex parte R.S.Opinion
This case was originally docketed in this Court as 06-05-00224-CR. Because of our disposition of this appeal, it has been redocketed as a civil case under this cause number.
Submitted: August 10, 2006.
Decided: August 25, 2006
On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court Hopkins County, Texas, Trial Court No. 0317177.
Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carolyn Bergin pled guilty to the state-jail felony of evading arrest. In accordance with a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment as a class A misdemeanor and placed Bergin on deferred adjudication community supervision for one year and assessed a $2,000.00 fine. The trial court dismissed the proceedings against Bergin after the deferred adjudication period ended.
See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(1) (Vernon 2003).
See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.44(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006).
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(c) (Vernon Supp. 2006).
After the proceedings were dismissed, Bergin filed a petition for an order of nondisclosure of criminal history record information. The trial court denied Bergin's petition, finding she was not eligible for an order of nondisclosure. Bergin appeals the trial court's denial of her petition. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.081 (Vernon Supp. 2006).
As a preliminary matter, Bergin asks this Court to determine whether this action shall be treated as a civil appeal or a criminal appeal. The statute providing for filing a petition for nondisclosure does not provide for the appeal of a petition's denial, nor does it specify how such an action should be treated at the trial court level. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.081. However, the statute states that a petition may only be filed, "[O]n payment of a $28 fee to the clerk of the court in addition to any other fee that generally applies to the filing of a civil petition." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.081(d). By providing that petitions for nondisclosure are subject to the same fees generally applicable to civil petitions, the Legislature indicated that it intended petitions for nondisclosure be treated as civil actions.
Further, a petition for nondisclosure is similar to an expunction. An expunction erases a criminal record, while nondisclosure seals the record but allows certain entities to view it. Tex Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.02 (Vernon Supp. 2006); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.081. Expunction proceedings are civil proceedings and are appealed in the same way as all other civil matters. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.02, § 3; State v. Henson, 573 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Therefore, we deem this appeal to be a civil proceeding.
Having resolved that this is an appeal of a civil proceeding, we must now determine if we have jurisdiction to consider it. We conclude we lack jurisdiction because the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed $100.00.
Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution gives this Court jurisdiction over all cases "of which the District Courts or County Courts have original or appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by law." Tex. Const. art. V, § 6. In addition, the Texas Constitution vests this Court with "such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law." Id. Thus, this Court's jurisdiction over this case must be based on either (1) the general constitutional grant, subject to any restrictions or regulations imposed by the Legislature; or (2) a specific statutory grant of jurisdiction. Tune v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tex. 2000). In contrast to the statutory provisions relating to expunctions, the relevant statutes in this case do not specifically provide this Court with appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.02, § 3; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.081. Therefore, this Court's jurisdiction over this appeal, if any, must be based on the general constitutional grant as restricted by the Legislature.
The general appellate jurisdiction of courts of appeals is limited to cases where the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $100.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012 (Vernon 1997); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.220(a) (Vernon 2004). Here, the only "amounts" involved are the filing fees, which by statute cannot be used to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.220(a).
Bergin contends that filing fees may be used to establish the amount in controversy, citing Tune, 23 S.W.3d 358. In Tune, the appellant was denied a concealed handgun license and challenged the denial on appeal. The Texas Supreme Court held the statutory $140.00 fee for a concealed handgun license was sufficient to establish the minimum value of the license. The court held that, because the licensing fee exceeded $100.00, the amount in controversy threshold had been met. Id. at 362.
However, Tune involved licensing fees paid to the Texas Department of Public Safety, not filing fees paid to the clerk of a court. Id. The Tune decision did not abrogate the statutory prohibition against utilizing court costs to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
We are not allowed to consider filing fees or other court costs to establish the amount in controversy. The record does not otherwise establish that the amount in controversy in this appeal exceeds $100.00.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.