Lackey v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 476
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated under a negotiated plea with punishment fine and confinement; conviction later appealed.
- Sixth Court of Appeals reversed, holding Judge Eileen Cox erred in appointing municipal judge John Skotnik to preside over suppression hearings.
- Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to address void/voidable status of Skotnik’s orders and preservation of error.
- Record shows a 2009 October 28 appointment order and a December 2 appointment order appointing Skotnik; appellant was not notified of these orders.
- suppression hearing occurred December 2, 2009, presided by Skotnik; appellant did not object to Skotnik’s qualifications at that hearing.
- Appellant later challenged Skotnik’s authority in a March 3, 2010 motion to set aside Skotnik’s suppression rulings and to conduct a new suppression hearing; Judge Cox held a new hearing was unnecessary and denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lackey preserved error on Skotnik’s appointment. | Lackey preserved error by later motion setting aside orders. | Appellant forfeited by not objecting at the suppression hearing. | Yes; appellate preserved error despite not objecting at the hearing. |
| Whether Skotnik’s orders were void or voidable, and impact on preservation. | Orders were void due to lack of proper qualifications. | Lackey’s preservation principle controls; issue not required for resolution. | Court did not need to resolve void vs voidable to affirm preservation. |
| Which statute governs appointment of a visiting judge (26.022 vs 26.023). | Section 26.023 governs the appointment under the facts. | Section 26.022 applicable; Skotnik qualified under it. | Court did not resolve merits of voidness; did not overrule the preservation finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Janecka v. State, 823 S.W.2d 232 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) (timeliness of objection required at appointment or earliest opportunity)
- Gillenwaters v. State, 205 S.W.3d 534 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (timeliness and preserving error principles)
- Hollins v. State, 805 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (timeliness standards for objections in pretrial matters)
- Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (unforeseeable events and preservation in mistrial-like contexts)
- Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (context for preservation and timely objection in bench trials)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (general principle: raise objections when possible to preserve error)
- Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (holding about judge’s lack of authority vs court jurisdiction; groundwork for authority/qualification discussions)
- Ex parte Washington, 442 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969) (disqualification affects jurisdiction and cannot be waived)