in the Matter of Julio Posadas, a Child

NO. 07-02-0331-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL E MAY 13, 2003 ______________________________ IN THE MATTER OF JULIO POSADAS, A CHILD _________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY; NO. 916; HONORABLE LARRY D. SPROWLS, JUDGE _______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. (1) ON MOTION TO DISMISS On June 25, 2002, appellant Julio Posadas was found to be a child who engaged in delinquent conduct. He was placed on juvenile probation with the condition, inter alia, that he spend 30 days at a juvenile "boot camp." Appellant gave timely notice of appeal from this adjudication. We have now been furnished with supplemental clerk's and reporter's records which show that appellant with his mother, after his attorney had been notified, appeared in open court and notified the court that he wished to dismiss his appeal. The trial court honored that request and by notifying us, has requested that the appeal be dismissed. We have issued no opinion in this case and there is no reason appellant's request should not be honored. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will be issued forthwith. John T. Boyd Senior Justice 1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). quest. It is from that denial that the Gardners appeal. They present nine issues, the first of which urges that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the requested injunction. The remaining eight issues are either shades of and subsidiary to the first issue, or seek advisory opinions on matters involved in the merits of the district court suit or the underlying county court suit. The decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and is subject to reversal only for a clear abuse of that discretion. See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). The trial court abuses its discretion if it rules arbitrarily, unreasonably, without regard to guiding legal principles, e.g., Goode v. Shoukfeh, 943 S.W.2d 441, 446 (Tex. 1997), or without supporting evidence. Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998). An abuse of discretion does not exist if the trial court bases its decision on conflicting evidence and some evidence reasonably supports the trial court's decision. See Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859, 862-63 (Tex. 1978). A request for injunctive relief to stay execution on a judgment must be tried in the court which rendered the judgment. See Tex. Civ. Pract. & Rem. Code Ann. § 65.023 (Vernon 1997). Section 65.023 generally determines both venue and jurisdiction for a suit seeking injunctive relief from a judgment, so long as the judgment from which relief is sought is not void. See Butron v. Cantu, 960 S.W.2d 91, 95 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no writ); International Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Riley, 467 S.W.2d 213, 214 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A judgment is void when the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or no capacity to act as a court. See Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985). The judgment of the county court is facially valid. Despite its facial validity, the Gardners urge that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and its judgment is void because (1) both parties to the forcible detainer action claimed title to the property, and (2) the only issue to be tried and determined in a forcible detainer suit is the right to actual possession and the merits of title shall not be adjudicated. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 746; Johnson v. Fellowship Baptist Church, 627 S.W.2d 203, 204 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1981, no writ). The Gardners offered the testimony of Gary Gardner to support their assertions in the district court. Gary opined that title was an issue in the county court according to the county court pleadings. But, those pleadings were not before the district court. In a hearing such as the hearing under review, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. See Leyva v. Pacheco, 163 Tex. 638, 358 S.W.2d 547, 549 (1962). The trial judge was neither bound to believe Gary Gardner's testimony as to the issues before the county court, nor to find that Gary's testimony required a determination that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. An abuse of discretion does not exist if the trial court based its decision on conflicting evidence and some evidence reasonably supported the decision. See Davis, 571 S.W.2d at 862. In this instance, the trial judge had before him a facially valid judgment of the county court. Such a judgment, in light of the record, supports the trial court's refusal to enjoin enforcement of the county court judgment. (1) The trial judge based his decision on, at best, conflicting evidence as to the validity of the county court judgment. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Gardners' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction. We overrule the Gardners' multiple issues asserting that the trial court abused its discretion and the issues asserting various shades of that proposition. We have no jurisdiction to address, and do not address, the issues effectively seeking advisory opinions as to the validity of certain county court proceedings, the county court judgment and various actions of the district and county courts. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000); Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home, 847 S.W.2d 227, 229-30 (Tex. 1993). The order denying temporary relief is affirmed. Phil Johnson Chief Justice 1. Ordinarily we address sua sponte the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction. Given the posture of this appeal, the record, and our disposition, we will not do so.