424 S.W.3d 624
Tex. App.2013Background
- On Sept. 4, 2009, Garrett was stopped while driving a commercial truck tractor and cited for not wearing a seat belt; the complaint tracked 49 C.F.R. § 392.16 (adopted by the Texas DPS director).
- Municipal court convicted Garrett of the Class C misdemeanor for violating the adopted federal regulation; jury fined $250.
- Garrett moved to quash, arguing the state should have charged him under Tex. Transp. Code § 545.413(a)(1) (failure to wear a seat belt while riding in a passenger vehicle), which carries a $25–$50 fine.
- He also objected to the jury charge and punishment range, asserting the Transportation Code provision is the more specific statute in pari materia and therefore controlling.
- County criminal court at law affirmed; on appeal to the First Court of Appeals the issues were whether the two provisions are in pari materia and whether the jury was charged correctly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garrett) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Regulation 392.16 and Tex. Transp. Code § 545.413(a)(1) are in pari materia | The statutes cover the same subject and purpose; § 545.413 is more specific and carries a lesser fine, so Garrett should have been charged under it | The provisions have different purposes and target different classes (commercial drivers vs. vehicle passengers); they are not in pari materia | Not in pari materia; conviction under adopted federal regulation upheld |
| Whether the trial court erred by instructing jury under Regulation 392.16 and its $0–$500 fine range | Jury should have been instructed under § 545.413 with a $25–$50 range | Garrett was charged under the adopted federal regulation; the court properly instructed on the applicable law and penalty | No charge error; instruction and punishment range were correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 396 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (in pari materia doctrine focuses on statutes' purposes)
- Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (special statute can control over broader statute when irreconcilable)
- Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (in pari materia as a rule of statutory construction)
- Alejos v. State, 555 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (similar language alone does not make statutes in pari materia)
- Ex parte Smith, 185 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due process requires prosecution under special statute when statutes are in pari materia)
- Bearnth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (issues of law in complaints reviewed de novo)
- Hollin v. State, 227 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (similar procedural rule on review standard)