Van Horn, Frederick William
AP-77,061
| Tex. App. | Oct 1, 2015Background
- Petitioner Frederick-William Van Horn challenges a September 9, 2015 Ellis County Court at Law No. 2 order denying his plea to the jurisdiction in a criminal matter arising under cause E0004327.
- The proceeding is titled a Notice of Appeal in WRIT 1001, relating to a criminal action prosecuted in the State of Texas by Waxahachie authorities.
- Van Horn contends the State had no standing or grounds to prosecute and seeks dismissal of the criminal action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing malice and improper chaining of proceedings.
- He frames the appeal as accelerated/interlocutory, citing Texas TRAP rules and deadlines for accelerated appeals, and requests the appellate record and docketing statements be prepared to advance the appeal.
- The filing includes extensive procedural arguments about clerk duties, clerk’s records, docketing statements, and accusations of clerical delays and mismanagement by Ellis County offices.
- Relief sought is termination of the criminal action for lack of jurisdiction and related damages/claims pursued in a separate action for reparations against the city.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction | Van Horn asserts no jurisdiction to prosecute and seeks dismissal with prejudice. | Waxahachie/State disputes lack of jurisdiction issues, maintaining prosecutorial authority. | No dispositive ruling shown; document asserts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether a plea to the jurisdiction is proper and timely in an accelerated/criminal appeal | Plea to jurisdiction is appropriate, should be determined promptly to terminate proceedings. | Rulings on procedural timetables and accelerations are governed by TRAP rules; merits not reached. | Court's disposition not stated; contents analyze accelerated-appeal procedure. |
| Whether there is standing to prosecute and whether the state has a proper basis to proceed | State lacks standing and right to prosecute, asserting fundamental rights and lack of damages. | State maintains authority to prosecute under criminal procedure. | No final determination of standing appears in the document. |
| Whether the clerk's conduct and docketing obligations violated appellate rules | Clerks failed to provide docketing statements and records; procedural delays harmed the appeal. | Clerks’ duties and record-keeping are within standard procedures; issues are procedural. | No substantive ruling on clerical misconduct found in the document. |
| Whether the petition constitutes an original proceeding (mandamus/prohibition) or an ordinary appeal | Argues for original-writ relief to address jurisdictional issues and delay. | Proceedings resemble an ordinary or accelerated appeal; original-writ avenues are limited. | Not resolved in the text provided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (establishes subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.2000) (plea to jurisdiction framework; procedural posture)
- In re United Servs. Auto. Assn., 307 S.W.3d 299 (Tex.2010) (interlocutory proceedings and void orders when lacking jurisdiction)
- Sivley v. Sivley, 972 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1998) (fundamental-error and lack-of-jjurisdiction considerations)
- City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440 (Tex.2013) (scope of subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal standards)