Gerald Stevens v. State
03-15-00676-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 30, 2015Background
- Gerald Stevens (pro se) was charged in Justice Court with two Transportation Code "transportation" offenses; convictions in JP court were appealed and a de novo trial was set in Travis County Court at Law No. 5.
- Stevens filed a Special Appearance (challenging personal jurisdiction) and a Plea to the Jurisdiction (challenging subject-matter jurisdiction/standing) and asserted a "no evidence" defense that the State presented no proof of commercial "transportation" (passengers/cargo for hire).
- The State did not file a signed attorney pleading in the record, did not serve a citation on Stevens, and presented no evidence at the hearing according to the appellate record cited by Stevens.
- At the September 15, 2015 hearing the county court denied Stevens’ Special Appearance and Plea to the Jurisdiction; the denial was memorialized in written orders and Stevens initiated an interlocutory appeal.
- Stevens argues as a matter of law that "transportation" under the Texas Transportation Code requires commercial intent (carrying passengers or cargo for hire), and thus without proof of that element there is no vehicle/motor vehicle/driver/operator and no standing or subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying Special Appearance (personal jurisdiction) was error | State proceeded in court and the court has statutory jurisdiction; case is properly before court | Stevens: no signed/served pleading, no citation, no affidavit, so no due-process notice and no personal jurisdiction | County court denied Special Appearance (order memorialized denying it) |
| Whether denying Plea to the Jurisdiction (subject-matter jurisdiction/standing) was error | State contends it has authority to prosecute Transportation Code violations | Stevens: no evidence of "transportation" (no passengers/cargo/for-hire), so State has no injury/grievance and no standing; subject-matter jurisdiction lacking | County court denied Plea to the Jurisdiction (order memorialized denying it) |
| Whether the State presented legally sufficient evidence of "transportation" | State presented the JP "complaint" and pursued trial (record shows prosecution proceeded) | Stevens: State produced no evidence at hearing or trial de novo to prove vital elements (passenger/cargo/for-hire) — a classic "no evidence" challenge | Record asserted by Stevens: no evidence presented; trial court nevertheless proceeded (Stevens moved to dismiss/directed verdict denied) |
| Whether lack of service/signed pleading renders proceedings void for lack of notice | State: prosecution may proceed under court processes (trial court acted) | Stevens: absence of served citation or attorney-signed pleading denies due process and renders judgments void for lack of personal jurisdiction | Stevens asserts orders are void; county court nonetheless declined to dismiss and denied jurisdictional challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (timing/sequence of service and initiation of proceedings matter for due process)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact)
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 133 S. Ct. 735 (interpreting "transportation"/"vessel" concepts in statutory context)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Texas standard for sufficiency of evidence/no-evidence review)