Philip Garay v. State
04-14-00252-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 26, 2015Background
- Petitioner Philip Garay (incarcerated) filed a memorandum and motion to dismiss criminal charges for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The indictments/complaints charge DWAI and enhanced-offender offenses under provisions printed in the Texas Penal Code/ Texas Statutes.
- Garay's core claim: the statutory provisions relied on in the charging instruments are not constitutionally valid laws because the published statutes lack the required enacting clause and statutory titles mandated by the Texas Constitution (Art. III §§ 29, 35).
- He contends that without a valid law the charging instruments are insufficient, so the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and any resulting judgment would be void.
- Garay cites an array of authorities holding that an indictment or complaint must allege a valid statutory offense and that a statute without required constitutional formalities (enacting clause/title) is void.
- The filing asks the court to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the memorandum is an argument for dismissal rather than a recorded court disposition in this document.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garay) | Defendant's Argument (State — implicit) | Held (in this filing) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a criminal charging instrument confers subject-matter jurisdiction if it relies on statutes that lack constitutionally required enactment formalities | The statutes cited (as printed in the Texas Penal Code/Statutes) lack an enacting clause and statutory titles required by Art. III §§29,35, so they are not valid laws; without a valid law there is no crime and no jurisdiction | The State would argue (implicitly) that the cited statutory compilation is valid law and the charging instruments are sufficient | Garay moves to dismiss; the memorandum urges dismissal. No court ruling is contained in this document. |
| Whether absence of an enacting clause on published statutes renders those statutes void | Enacting clause must appear on the face of a statute; its absence makes the statute void and deprives the statute of jurisdictional identity | The State would argue traditional publication/compilation practices suffice to identify statutes as valid law | Argument presented: statutes without enactment clause are void; motion seeks dismissal |
| Whether a statute printed without a title violates Art. III §35 and cannot be enforced | Titles are mandatory and part of the act; absence defeats notice and permits challenge to validity | The State would argue that titles/one-subject rules are satisfied by legislative session laws or other legislative records | Garay asserts absence of titles in the cited compilation invalidates the laws and the charges |
| Effect of invalid statutes on indictments and judgments | If the law charged does not exist or is unconstitutional, the indictment charges no offense and any conviction/judgment is void ab initio | The State would maintain that legislative acts are properly enacted and the courts have long treated printed statutes and codifications as valid law | The filing requests dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; no judicial decision recorded here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chatmon, 671 P.2d 531 (Kan. 1983) (indictment is the jurisdictional instrument upon which accused stands trial)
- Hennumichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D. 1983) (without a formal accusation a court acquires no subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Carlson, 186 N.W. 722 (Wis. 1922) (invalid complaint defeats jurisdiction over the subject matter)
- Ralph v. Police Court of El Cerrito, 190 P.2d 632 (Cal. 1948) (a judgment entered under an invalid indictment is void ab initio)
- Kelly v. Meyers, 253 F. 903 (D. Or. 1928) (if statute is unconstitutional and void, it creates no crime and court lacks jurisdiction to try the person)