Opinion
Nos. 05-03-01627-CR, 05-03-01756-CR, 05-03-01757-CR, 05-03-01758-CR, 05-03-01759-CR
Opinion Filed August 9, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. MC03-2635-D, MC03-2636-D, MC03-2637-D, MC03-2638-D, and MC03-2640-D. Dismissed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In these cases, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction over cases originating in a municipal court and appealed to the county criminal court of appeals where the fine imposed in each case was not more than $100. We conclude we do not. Robert James Fox appeals bringing eight points of error challenging the convictions. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. The Mesquite municipal court convicted Fox, who occasionally places a colon between his middle and last name, of five Class C misdemeanors: operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license, Tex. Transp Code Ann. § 521.021 (Vernon 1999); operating a motor vehicle without maintaining financial responsibility, id. § 601.191; speeding, id. § 545.351; operating a motor vehicle without current registration, id. § 502.404; and operating a motor vehicle without a valid inspection certificate, id. § 548.602 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Fox appealed to the county criminal court of appeals and received a trial de novo. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.17 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). That court convicted Fox of all five offenses and fined him $50 in each case. He now appeals to this court. If a case arising in the justice or municipal courts is appealed to the county court, county criminal court, or county court at law, and the fine imposed by that court does not exceed $100, we have no jurisdiction "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); Montpas v. State, 997 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). Thus, unless Fox's sole issue is the constitutionality of the statutes on which he was convicted, we have no jurisdiction. Fox's points of error, for the most part, are best characterized as indecipherable. Neither are they adequately briefed. To the extent arguments within his brief might be interpreted as challenging the constitutionality of the statutes, Fox appears to argue that the statutes in question attempt to tax his right to free exercise of religion, citing Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). However, Fox presents no evidence, authority, or substantive argument showing how the traffic regulations amount to a "tax" on the exercise of his religion. Neither does he address cases where we have rejected similar arguments in the past. See, e.g., Coyle v. State, 775 S.W.2d 843, 846-47 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, no pet.). Neither does Fox's oral argument shed much light. During oral argument he claimed that he had been denied due process arising from a conflict of interest because he has been sued by the supreme court and "bar terrorists" for unauthorized practice of law. He argued: "The issue is whether middle temple, underground, unregistered foreign agents acting as quislings to overthrow the constitution of the United States of America in the nature of sedition and treason, could ever do anything but deny due process." He then stated, as did his brief, that once due process is denied all jurisdiction ceases. Whatever his due process argument is, it is not an attack on the constitutionality of the statues under which he was convicted. Further, when specifically asked at oral argument whether he had any argument to make concerning the constitutionality of those statutes, Fox declined. However we may characterize Fox's issues, they cannot be characterized as solely asserting issues as to the constitutionality of the statutes under which Fox was convicted. Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over these appeals. We dismiss the appeal in each of these cases.
Fox's issues on appeal, quoted verbatim from his brief, are as follows:
I.
The Trial Court Erred When I was denied due process in a criminal conspiracy as purported BAR members, alleged to be STATE AGENTS, have conspired or acted in collusion within our REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT to deprive me of my God-given, unalienable Rights and cause this government to neglect it's duty to secure my God-given, unalienable Rights.
II.
The Trial Court Erred When, despite recognition of the of the attempt to enforce the law by breaking the law, the court failed to quash all accusations as a denial of due process which voids jurisdiction, as arising from the matter of "Failure to Identify" as eliminated at the prima facie break.
III.
The Trial Court Erred When it failed to recognize the right of the people to exercise rights absent corpus [sic] delecti.
IV.
The Trial Court Erred When it failed to recognize the accusations as civilly regulated as opposed to criminally prohibited.
V.
The Trial Court Erred When it failed to recognize the accusations as duplicitous.
VI.
The Trial Court Erred When it failed to recognize that the speed signs apply ONLY to commercial vehicles.
VII.
The Trial Court Erred When proceeding as if there was such a thing as "FUTURE CRIMES".
VIII.
The Trial Court Erred When it proceeded as if there could be a law requiring me to register private property, which means giving private property over