Elijah Ratcliff v. State

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-02-396 CR NO. 09-02-397 CR ____________________ ELIJAH WHITE RATCLIFF, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Polk County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 2002-0217 and 2002-0218 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Elijah White Ratcliff of failure to yield right of way in Cause No. 2002-0217 (Appeal No. 09-02-396 CR). In Cause No. 2002-0218 (Appeal No. 09-02-397 CR), the same jury convicted Ratcliff of operating an unregistered motor vehicle. In each case, the trial court assessed a $45.00 fine as punishment for the offense. Because the appeals involve the application of well-settled principles of law, we deliver this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Ratcliff presents four issues on appeal: Issue I: Unsubstantiated and hearsay testimony though inadmissible was illegally utilized against Appellant during the trial below. Issue II: The accused was denied access to legal process to which he was statutorily and constitutionally entitled. Issue III: Appellant was entitled to a specific jury instruction or a judgment non obstante veridicto [sic] based on the absence of admissible evidence to support a guilty verdict. Issue IV: The rulings of the trial Court infringed upon Appellant's Constitutional rights mandated by the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The State challenges our jurisdiction to address the issues raised by the appellant. Article 4.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure determines our jurisdiction in this matter. It provides: The Courts of Appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of their respective districts in all criminal cases except those in which the death penalty has been assessed. This Article shall not be so construed as to embrace any case which has been appealed from any inferior court to the county court, the county criminal court, or county court at law, in which the fine imposed by the county court, the county criminal court or county court at law does not exceed one hundred dollars, 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 Supp. 2003). Ratcliff pleaded nolo contendere before the municipal court and was assessed fines of $125.00 and $110.00. On appeal, the county court at law conducted a trial de novo and assessed fines that did not exceed $100. Therefore, our jurisdiction is not invoked unless the appellant complains that the statutes on which his conviction was based are unconstitutional. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 502.407 (Vernon Supp. 2003); Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 542.301, 545.152 (Vernon 1999). Montpas v. State, 997 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999, no pet.); Bidelspach v. State, 840 S.W.2d 516, 519 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992), pet. dism'd, 850 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over challenge to sufficiency of the evidence); Aaronson v. State, 779 S.W.2d 472, 473 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1989, no pet.)(Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider claim of denial of due process). Compare Meisner v. State, 907 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Tex. App.--Waco 1995, no pet.) (Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider claim that traffic ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.). Ratcliff's brief on issue four states, "Appellant contested the Citations giving rise to the subject Appeal to establish the invalidity and resulting constitutionality of the subject Citations." His argument complains of the actions of the courts below, without any mention of or argument relating to the constitutionality of the statutes that Ratcliff was convicted of violating. We have no jurisdiction over the appeals. The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. APPEALS DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on February 18, 2003 Opinion Delivered February 26, 2003 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.