In re Meyer
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 330
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Relator Jack H. Meyer (pro se) sought mandamus to force a Harrison County justice of the peace, the county court at law judge, and the county district attorney to "prove their jurisdiction" or dismiss charges and return bonds related to traffic citations (seatbelt, expired license, registration).
- Meyer asserted sovereign-citizen arguments and contended lower tribunals failed to address or show proof of jurisdiction when he challenged it.
- He filed an original mandamus petition in the court of appeals asking that the trial judges and the district attorney be ordered to resolve the jurisdictional question.
- The court examined whether it possessed mandamus jurisdiction under Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b) to issue writs against a justice of the peace, a county court at law judge (statutory county court), or a district attorney.
- The court concluded it lacked mandamus jurisdiction over the justice of the peace and the district attorney, and—based on statutory definitions enacted in 1987—also lacked jurisdiction over the county court at law judge.
- The petition for mandamus was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court of appeals has mandamus power over a justice of the peace or district attorney under Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b) | Meyer sought writs requiring them to prove jurisdiction | Respondents implicitly argued (and statute/caselaw reflect) courts of appeals lack such jurisdiction | Court: No jurisdiction over justice of the peace or district attorney under § 22.221(b) |
| Whether § 22.221(b) authorizes mandamus to a county court at law judge (statutory county court) | Meyer sought writ against county court at law judge to compel jurisdictional determination | Respondents/State argued § 22.221(b) applies only to "county court" as statutorily defined (constitutional county court) | Court: § 22.221(b) applies to constitutional county courts only; no jurisdiction over county court at law judge |
| Whether historical practice (cases treating "county court" to include county courts at law) controls interpretation | Meyer relied on prior appellate practice granting/denying mandamus against county courts at law | Opposing view: statute definitions changed in 1987 (Tex. Gov’t Code § 21.009) and limit meaning of "county court" | Court: Must follow statutory definition from § 21.009; historical practice cannot override clear legislative definitions |
| Whether relator stated a claim warranting mandamus under § 22.221(a) to enforce court of appeals' own jurisdiction | Meyer argued courts failed to enforce/show jurisdiction when challenged | Respondents did not show an enforcement-of-appellate-jurisdiction basis in petition | Court: This proceeding was not brought under § 22.221(a); mandamus relief under § 22.221(b) is limited and unavailable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Easton v. Franks, 842 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (per curiam) (section 22.221(b) does not authorize mandamus against a justice of the peace)
- Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (discusses scope of courts of appeals' mandamus power in criminal matters)
- City of El Paso v. Ward, 213 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1948) (appellate mandamus practice addressing county court at law without questioning scope of "county court")
- Trinity Capital Corp. v. Briones, 847 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993) (appellate mandamus granted against a county court at law in earlier practice)