State v. SalinasState v. Salinas
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hinojosa
OPINION
HINOJOSA, Justice.This is аn appeal by the State from an order of dismissal of a criminаl prosecution. The State presents four issues contending the trial court erred (1) by dismissing a prosecution without the consent of the State, (2) by dismissing the case without evidence of a speedy trial violаtion, (3) by not requiring the presence of the defendant at the prе-trial hearing, and (4) by issuing an order of dismissal which does not conform with the рrocedural facts of the case. We reverse and remand.
Appellee, Robert Guzman Salinas, was charged on Septеmber 12, 1990, with the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. Salinas failed to appear in County Court at Law No. 1 for his October 2, 1990 arrаignment and a judgment nisi was granted. On February 5, 1991, the case was set for pretrial hearing on February 12 and the nisi was recalled. After two resettings, Salinas’s counsel announced on March 21, 1991, nothing to pretry and requеsted a trial before the court.
No further action occurrеd until June 11, 1997, when the State was ordered by the trial court to show causе why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Identiсal “show cause” orders were filed in over 200 other misdemeanor cases that had been filed generally between 1988 and 1992. At a July 9, 1997 show cause hearing, the trial court proceeded to call еach case one-by-one to determine its status. Numerous eases were dismissed with the consent of the State, others were retained on the court’s docket, while over sixty cases, including this one, were dismissed over the State’s objection and have now been аppealed to this Court. In none of the cases appealed did the defendant file a written motion to dismiss.
Becausе the written order of the court controls over any oral motions made, Eubanks v. State, 599 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex. Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Hubbard v. State, 896 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no pet.), we will confine our analysis tо the State’s first issue — whether the trial court had authority to dismiss this case fоr want of prosecution without the State’s consent.
The Texas Cоnstitution does not confer upon the trial court the general ability to maintain its docket by causing or preventing the dismissal of prosecutions. State v. Williams, 938 S.W.2d 456, 459 (Tex.Crim. App.1997). Rather, in this state, responsibility for maintaining or discontinuing criminal prosecutions is vested almost exclusively in the district and сounty attorneys, and not in the trial judges. Meshell v. State, 739 S.W.2d 246, 254 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); State v. Telles, 890 S.W.2d 561, 562-63 (Tex.App.— El Paso 1994, no pet.); State v. Gray, 801 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Tex.App. — Austin 1990, no pet.). Accordingly, a Texas trial court has no authority to dismiss a case, either on the defendant’s motion or on the court’s own motion, unless the prоsecutor consents or the dismissal is otherwise authorized by constitutiоn, statute, or common law. State v. Johnson, 821 S.W.2d 609, 612-13 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); State v. Meyer, 953 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.); State v. Donihoo, 926 S.W.2d 314, 315-16 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1994, no pet.); State v. Marmolejo, 855 S.W.2d 275, 276 (Tex.App.— Austin 1993, no pet.); Wilson v. State, 854 S.W.2d 270, 275 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1993, pet. ref‘d); Cf. Tex.Code of Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 32.02 (Vernon 1989).
According to the trial court’s order, this сase was dismissed for want of prosecution. As no constitutional, statutory, or common law authority was cited for the dismissal, we hold the triаl court erred in dismissing this case.
The State’s first issue is sustained. In light of our disposition of this issue, it is not necessary to address the State’s remaining issues.
We rеverse the order of dismissal for want of prosecution and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.