Texas Court of Appeals
Chambers v. State 10/18/2022
Issue:
Does a court of appeals have jurisdiction to accept an appeal from a municipal court offense when an opinion on appeal was issued by the county court without an order and a municipal court judgment?
Holding:
Yes. In an opinion on reconsideration, the en banc Court concluded that Government Code Chapter 30 requires no more than a “written opinion” or an “order” to allow the defendant’s further appeal to an intermediate appeals court or to vest the court with jurisdiction upon timely filing of a proper notice of appeal. While the county court judge did not write the date next to her signature, the opinion from the county court judge is signed and file-stamped, which is sufficient to establish the date of signing. Read opinion.
Dissent (Hassan, J.):
Without an order or judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal and it should be dismissed. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is clear that “the right of appeal to the Court of Appeals of this state is expressly accorded the defendant for a review of any judgment or order made hereunder and said appeal shall be given preference by the appellate court.” Here, there is neither a judgment nor an order. Read dissent.
Dissent (Spain, J.):
“Can an undated document be appealed? I suspect most lawyers would guess ‘no.’ The en banc court, however, boldly goes on a determination of jurisdictional facts on appeal, adopting a purported ‘common sense’ approach to what is downplayed as a minor issue—we’ll just use the clerk’s file-stamp on the undated document and move the merchandise.
“And maybe it would work in this case if there were a harmless-error standard for subject-matter jurisdiction. … I know of no such authority in the context of establishing a date that determines subject-matter jurisdiction.” Read dissent.
Commentary:
These opinions will have application to municipal court appeals to county court, and the issue was resolved purely through statutory construction. For those who are interested, there is also a good in pari materia analysis construing the commercial-vehicle, no-seat-belt provision under which the defendant was prosecuted against the more general passenger-vehicle provision in the Transportation Code.
Texas Attorney General Opinions
No. KP-0419 10/18/22
Issue:
May a merchant offer a theft deterrent course in lieu of arrest and prosecution, and if so, would doing so would expose a merchant or educational provider to civil or criminal liability?
Conclusion:
The shopkeeper’s privilege in Civil Practice and Remedies Code §124.001 authorizes a merchant to detain a person suspected of shoplifting to investigate ownership of the property. While that statute does not authorize a merchant to offer a theft deterrent course in lieu of referral to law enforcement for arrest and prosecution, the Attorney General’s Office found no other Texas law that specifically prohibits such a practice. Read opinion.
Requested by:
Rep. DeWayne Burns, Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture and Livestock
Commentary:
It is not clear how often Texas shopkeepers take advantage of §124.001 or of the opportunity to give theft-deterrent courses, but it may already be happening at a big box store near you. In 2017 and again in 2021, Rep. Burns (the requestor of this opinion) filed but failed to pass bills supported by Walmart and other retailers that would statutorily recognize (and grant certain immunities to providers of) such courses, which are akin to privatized pre-trial diversions complete with fees the suspected shoplifter must pay to a private vendor to satisfactorily complete the course and avoid prosecution. This mildly extortionary perception has kept the bills from becoming law, but perhaps this AG opinion will further embolden merchants to resort to this type of “self-help” when it comes to loss prevention.