Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of December 12, 2016.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

City of Krum v. Rice, No. 02-15-00342-CV (Dec. 15, 2016) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Gardner, J; Kerry FitzGerald (Senior Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment) dissents with opinion).

Held: Rice sued the City of Krum challenging its sex offender residency restrictions ordinance (SORRO).  The City sought to have the suit dismissed on grounds that the SORRO is a criminal ordinance and, therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear Rice’s challenge to it. The SORRO is not a criminal ordinance, and, therefore, the trial court properly denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.

Dissent:  Even if Rice prevailed on his attack on the SORRO, he would still be precluded from living in his parents’ house because of the restrictions in his probation received after he pleaded guilty to the criminal offense of sexual assault of a child.  Because the issue of whether he can legally reside with his parents is moot, further review of this case is a fruitless endeavor and a total waste of judicial resources.

Zamarripa v. State, No. 02-15-00409-CR (Dec. 15, 2016) (Dauphinot, J., joined by Gardner and Walker, JJ.).

Held:  The trial court’s assessment of community supervision fees as reparations did not violate Appellant’s rights to due process or violate the code of criminal procedure.  Further, the presence of the challenged amount of community supervision fees on the balance sheet and the certified bill of costs is evidence supporting the award.