Khozindar, Eric Paul
PD-0799-15
| Tex. | Jun 29, 2015Background
- Eric Khozindar received a civil red‑light camera notice under Tex. Trans. Code §707.017 and did not pay the $75 civil penalty.
- The county assessor allegedly refused to renew registration for the vehicle based on the unpaid civil penalty; Khozindar was later cited for expired registration under Tex. Trans. Code §§502.059/502.471.
- Khozindar pleaded nolo contendere in municipal court, appealed to Denton County Criminal Court (trial de novo), which convicted him and assessed a $1 fine plus costs.
- Khozindar argued the red‑light statute (§707.017) is unconstitutional because it deprives him of property/use of his vehicle without procedural due process and effectively punishes him via registration denial for a civil penalty.
- The Fort Worth Court of Appeals dismissed Khozindar’s appeal for want of jurisdiction because the county‑court fine (exclusive of costs) did not exceed $100 and Khozindar did not challenge the constitutionality of the statutes that formed the basis of his conviction (§502.059 and §502.471).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the county‑court judgment | Khozindar: appellate court had jurisdiction because appeal raised constitutionality of §707.017 (a jurisdictional exception) | State: Khozindar did not challenge constitutionality of the statutes underlying his conviction (§502.059/§502.471); fine was ≤ $100, so no appellate jurisdiction | Court held: No jurisdiction — fine ≤ $100 and Khozindar did not challenge constitutionality of the statute on which the conviction was based |
| Whether Tex. Trans. Code §707.017 may lawfully permit refusal to renew registration for unpaid civil red‑light penalties | Khozindar: §707.017 is unconstitutional — denies property/right to use vehicle without due process; civil penalty cannot justify withholding registration | State: Enforcement via registration denial is authorized by statute and separate from the criminal/municipal conviction process | Court did not reach the constitutional merits because of jurisdictional dismissal |
| Whether denial of registration constitutes an unconstitutional seizure or deprivation of property/use | Khozindar: Denial effectively confiscates the vehicle’s utility and infringes protected property interests and exemptions (e.g., Tex. Prop. Code exemptions) | State: (Not addressed on the merits due to jurisdictional ruling) | Court did not decide this claim due to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether pro se status required a broader construction of appellant’s pleadings on appeal | Khozindar: As a pro se litigant, his filings should be liberally construed to raise §707.017 constitutional claim | State: Appellant’s filings did not satisfy the narrow jurisdictional exception | Court treated the filings as not invoking the constitutional challenge to the statutes forming the conviction and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd v. State, 11 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App. 1999) (limited appellate jurisdiction when fine does not exceed $100)
- Martin v. State, 346 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961) (exception to jurisdictional rule where jurisdictional question is presented)
- Matula v. State, 161 S.W. 965 (Tex. 1913) (jurisdictional principles in appeals from inferior courts)
- Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. at Houston v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995) (Texas due‑course and federal due‑process provisions interpreted without meaningful distinction)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1986) (Fourteenth Amendment protection against deprivation without due process)
- Miller v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (context on exemptions and creditor protections)
- Brown v. Davis, 123 S.W.2d 321 (Tex. 2002) (discussing property exemptions and protections)