Opinion
No. 05-06-00608-CV
Opinion Filed June 26, 2007.
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA99-17107-L.
Before Justices WRIGHT, RICHTER, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Ryan Christopher Crowder appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for non-disclosure of criminal history record information. In his sole issue on appeal, Crowder alleges the trial court erred in denying his petition for non-disclosure because the trial court misinterpreted section 411.081 of the Texas Government Code. The State contends this court has no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT.
On March 23, 2000, Crowder entered a plea of nolo contendere to committing the misdemeanor offense of violation of a protective order. The trial court placed Crowder on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of twelve months and assessed a $ 25.00 fine. At the end of the period of supervision, on April 2, 2001, the trial court dismissed the proceedings against Crowder and discharged him from community supervision. Thereafter, Crowder filed a petition for non-disclosure of his criminal history record information under section 411.081 of the Texas Government Code. On April 5, 2006, the trial court denied his petition, Crowder timely filed notice of appeal, and the State responded contending there is no basis for jurisdiction of the appeal in this court.
II. JURISDICTION
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(a). In addition, the Texas Constitution vests courts of appeals with "such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law." Id. Thus, an appellate court's jurisdiction must be based on (1) the general constitutional grant, subject to any regulations or restrictions imposed by the legislature; or (2)] a specific statutory grant of jurisdiction. Id.; see also Tune v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Tex. 2000).
We first look to the non-disclosure of criminal history statute itself to see whether it contains a specific grant of jurisdiction to the courts of appeals. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 411.081 (Vernon 2005). This staute does not specifically provide this court with jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court's jurisdiction over this appeal, if any, must be based on the general constitutional grant as restricted by the legislature. General appellate jurisdiction of courts of appeals is limited to cases where the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $ 100, exclusive of interests and costs. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 51.012 (Vernon 1997); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.220(a) (Vernon 2004).
Tex. Gov't. Code § 411.081. Application of Subchapter
. . .
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if a person is placed on deferred adjudication community supervision under Section 5, Article 42.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, subsequently receives a discharge and dismissal under Section 5(c), Article 42.12, and satisfies the requirements of Subsection (e), the person may petition the court that placed the defendant on deferred adjudication for an order of nondisclosure under this subsection.
. . .
(e) . . .A person is not entitled to petition the court under Subsection (d) if the person has been previously convicted or placed on deferred adjudication for:
. . .
(4) any other offense involving family violence, as defined by Section 71.004, Family Code.
Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 51.012. Appeal or Writ of Error to Court of Appeals
In a civil case in which the judgment or amount in controversy exceeds $ 100, exclusive of interest and costs, a person may take an appeal or writ of error to the court of appeals from a final judgment of the district or county court.
Tex. Gov't Code § 22.220. Civil Jurisdiction
(a) Each court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases within its district of which the district courts or county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $100, exclusive of interest and costs.
III. DISCUSSION
In his briefing to this court, Crowder does not address whether this court has jurisdiction. However, the record reflects Crowder paid a $ 210 filing fee with the district clerk for his petition for non-disclosure of criminal history. On this record, the only "amounts" which are reflected are the filing fees. According to the applicable statutes, filing fees do not qualify to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.012; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.220(a). In Tune v. Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety, the Texas Supreme Court held a $ 140 licensing fee for a concealed handgun was sufficient to establish the minimum value to meet the "amount in controversy" requirement. Tune, 23 S.W.3d at 361-362. The Court in Tune emphasized the phrase "amount in controversy" means the sum of money or value originally sued for. Id. at 361. However, Tune is distinguishable because Tune involved licensing fees paid to the Texas Department of Public Safety, not filing fees paid to the clerk of the court. See Tune, 23 S.W.3d at 361-62.
IV. CONCLUSION
On this record, we conclude Crowder's $ 210 filing fee does not satisfy the amount in
controversy requirement necessary to invoke jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.