Robert Earl Marzett v. State
05-14-01570-CR
| Tex. App. | May 29, 2015Background
- On Sept. 24, 2014 Irving police encountered Robert Earl Marzett in a Suburban with no plates; officers found an expired/suspended license, no inspection sticker, and no insurance. Marzett drove away after being told not to; officers pursued and arrested him.
- Marzett was convicted in Irving Municipal Court of: operating an unregistered vehicle, no valid inspection, failing to maintain financial responsibility, and driving with an invalid license.
- He appealed to the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals, which affirmed; Marzett appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas).
- Marzett advanced a series of novel defenses: that the Texas Transportation Code did not apply to his asserted status as a "sovereign" traveler, that statutory terms ("transportation," "person," "state") were inapplicable or vague, and that courts/judges were de facto because of monetary/accounting arguments.
- The Fifth Court reviewed procedural and evidentiary claims, statutory-interpretation challenges to the Transportation Code, complaints about the charging documents/affidavit, and reliability of officers’ testimony; it affirmed the lower courts on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Marzett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge disqualification | Judge was de facto (not de jure) due to monetary/accounting defects; requested disqualification | Motion inadequately briefed; no record/authority supports claim | Denied; issue waived for inadequate briefing |
| Sufficiency of evidence | State failed to prove he was a "person" or subject to Transportation Code; no proof of transporting on a "transportation" state | Marzett admitted lack of license, registration, inspection, and insurance; evidence supports elements | Evidence sufficient under Jackson standard; convictions affirmed |
| Applicability/constitutionality of Transportation Code (terms: "transportation," "person," "state") | Statute is private/federal corporate law; definitions exclude Texas or sovereign individuals; vague and not applicable to private travel | Statutory language is clear; Marzett cites no authority; court may interpret statutes de novo | Rejected; arguments lack merit and are inadequately supported |
| Charging instrument / jurisdiction / standing | Clerk-affidavit and unsworn police report unreliable; complaint failed to allege essential elements or personal jurisdiction; City lacked standing absent consent | Municipal complaints may be sworn by clerk based on police reports; complaint need not mirror indictment; suffices to give notice | Complaint and affidavit were sufficient; municipal charging procedures valid |
| Officer testimony & objections | Officers used statutory terms; their testimony was unreliable and should be stricken | Credibility and weight for trier of fact; Marzett failed to show which statutory terms invalid or erroneous | Overruled; trial court as factfinder could credit officers’ testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Muhammed v. State, 331 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (briefing must include authorities and record citations or issue is waived)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (applying Jackson sufficiency standard)
- Bays v. State, 396 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Nguyen v. State, 359 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (statutory construction and legislative intent)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (courts must give statutes their plain meaning)
- Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (trial judge as sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Calloway v. State, 743 S.W.2d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (trial court discretion over timing of pretrial hearings)
- Wells v. State, 516 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (complaint based on police report may support prosecution)
- Rose v. State, 799 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990) (municipal complaint sufficiency and affiant need not have firsthand knowledge)
- Vallejo v. State, 408 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966) (complaint need not have indictment-level particularity)
- Herrera v. State, 241 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (article 38.22 requirements limited to custodial interrogation)