Opinion
No. 05-09-00243-CR
Opinion filed July 6, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 006-89709-08.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Vanhooser was convicted in McKinney Municipal Court of the traffic offense of failing to use a seat belt, a misdemeanor. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 545.413 (Vernon Supp. 2009). He appealed to the County Court at Law No. 6, where he pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to this offense and was convicted in a bench trial. He was ordered to pay a fine of $50 and court costs. Vanhooser appeals the judgment of the County Court at Law No. 6. Vanhooser, representing himself, has filed a brief. The State has not filed a brief. We submitted this case without the reporter's record or oral argument. See Tex. Rs. App. P. 37.3(c)(2), 39.8. The background of the case is well known to the parties. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. Rs. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. On appeal, Vanhooser raises three issues, each contending, for a different reason, that "the original trial court lacked jurisdiction to try the case and subject matter jurisdiction" and proceeded "without lawful authority." In issues one and two, he argues the original trial court lacked jurisdiction because the city prosecutor could not execute complaints or try cases for the city because he failed to have the "constitutionally required" bribery statement and oath of office "executed and filed" as did the city attorney. In issue three, Vanhooser argues the original trial court lacked jurisdiction because the city prosecutor was both complainant/affiant and prosecutor in that he both signed the complaint and prosecuted the case in municipal 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.). Vanhooser appealed his conviction by the McKinney Municipal Court to the Collin County Court at Law No. 6, where he was convicted in a trial de novo and fined less than $100. Thus, unless Vanhooser's sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted, we have no jurisdiction. Vanhooser's first two issues concern the application of article XVI, section one of the Texas Constitution, but they do not concern the constitutionality of section 545.413 of the Texas Transportation Code. Instead, all three issues relate to the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.03. We dismiss this appeal.
When no reporter's record was filed within the time allowed, this Court abated this appeal and ordered the trial court make findings of fact whether Vanhooser had been deprived of the reporter's record for any reason, whether he desired to prosecute the appeal, and whether he was indigent, among other findings. The trial court held a hearing and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law as to why no reporter's record had been filed. Subsequently, we reinstated the appeal and adopted the trial court's findings that: (1) Vanhooser desired to pursue the appeal; (2) he was not indigent; (3) he was prosecuting the appeal pro se; (4) he requested preparation of the record on a date certain and was informed of the cost; (5) he had not yet paid the court reporter for the record; (6) the court reporter Claudia Webb recorded the proceedings; and, (7) she could file the record within three business days of receipt of payment. As to the reporter's record, we ordered the court reporter to file, within fifteen days, either the reporter's record or written verification that Vanhooser had not paid for it, and we notified Vanhooser that "if we receive verification of non-payment, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter's record," pursuant to rule of appellate procedure 37.3(c). See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). We also cautioned Vanhooser regarding the filing of the clerk's record, but it was subsequently filed. We received written verification that Vanhooser had not paid the court reporter for the reporter's record. By letter dated July 9, 2009, Vanhooser informed the Court that he would not pay for a reporter's record and "move[d] this court to proceed without it." No reporter's record has been filed.
Vanhooser's first and second issues rely on article XVI, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Sections 1(a) and (b) require that all elected and appointed officers take an oath of office and an anti-bribery oath; section 1(c) requires that state legislators, the Secretary of State, and "all other elected and appointed state officers" file the anti-bribery statement with the Secretary of State before taking the oath of office, and that all other officers retain the anti-bribery statement with "the official records of the office." See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 1.