Gayleen S. Todd v. State
03-14-00386-CR
| Tex. App. | May 18, 2015Background
- Todd was tried in Williamson County for failure to maintain financial responsibility following a Round Rock incident.
- Todd alleges no charging instrument was properly served; she asserts no notice or filing satisfied Art. 45.018(b) or related statutes.
- Todd contends the City acted as STATE's agent to issue a car-impound/ticket without proper jurisdiction or evidence of transportation.
- Todd claims the trial court coerced consent and prevented objection to key 'commercial terms' of transportation that would prove lack of standing.
- Todd argues multiple due process defects: lack of notice, lack of evidence of transportation, and denial of fair trial and travel/contract rights.
- Judgment states Todd was guilty and fined $220; Todd seeks voiding of judgment and relief including refund of impound costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was proper notice and a charging instrument | Todd: no notice/charging instrument served | State: notice complied under applicable statutes | No notice prevents jurisdiction; non-case; judgment void |
| Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists without transportation evidence | Todd: no transportation, no actual grievance | State: transportation implied by statute/charge | No transportation evidence; standing lacking; jurisdictionvoid |
| Whether the court compelled Todd's consent to transport-related terms | Todd: consent coerced; due process violated | State: consent legitimate via proceedings | Consent compelled; burden improperly shifted; due process violated |
| Whether Todd's right to a fair trial was violated | Todd: defense access and confrontation blocked; evidence exclusion | State: trial proceeded with admissible evidence | Right to fair trial violated; defense impeded |
| Whether the right to travel/contract/engage in commerce was improperly impacted | Todd: travel/contract rights protected; cannot be coerced into transportation | State: enforcement of financial responsibility provisions | Rights implicated; improper imposition; failure to sustain law |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986) (clear standards for evidentiary burdens and summary judgment guidance)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966) (coercion and due process considerations in interrogation and confession)
- Ex parte Smythe, 116 Tex. Crim. 146, 28 S.W.2d 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930) (historical considerations on notice and charging instruments)
- Plumbers' Union v. Borden, 373 U.S. 690 (Supreme Court, 1963) (rights related to labor, contract, and due process)
- Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (case addressing notice and evidentiary concerns in pleadings)