Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 15, 2017.

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 Westworth Village, Tex. v. Tex. Voices for Reason & Justice, No. 02-16-00106-CV (May 18, 2017) (Gabriel, J., joined by Walker and Meier, JJ.).

Held:  The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Appellee Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, Inc.’s (TVRJ) suit challenging the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance enacted by Appellant City of Westworth Village, Texas, because TVRJ, who had filed the suit solely on behalf of its alleged members, lacked standing to do so.  TVRJ lacked standing to sue on behalf of its alleged members because (1) under state law, it was a domestic nonprofit corporation that did not have any traditional members, and (2) its alleged members lacked sufficient indicia of membership in the organization to confer standing upon it to sue on their behalf.

Ette v. State, No. 02-16-00173-CR (May 18, 2017) (Pittman, J., joined by Livingston, C.J.; Kerr, J. dissents with opinion).

Held:  The jury verdict, written judgment, bill of cost, and written conditions of community supervision signed by the trial judge and Appellant within minutes of the trial court’s oral pronouncement demand that we uphold the lawful fine imposed by the jury but omitted from the oral pronouncement.

Dissent:  When a sentence is ambiguous, courts properly look beyond the sentence to construe it.  When a sentence is not ambiguous, looking beyond the sentence to create an ambiguity is improper.  Here the trial court’s sentence unambiguously does not include any fine.  No ambiguity exists to resolve.  The trial court’s sentence is erroneous because the jury assessed a fine, but it is not ambiguous. Whether Appellant’s judgment properly includes a fine does not depend on untangling an ambiguous sentence; rather, it depends on determining how an erroneous sentence impacts the judgment.  When the sentence and judgment conflict, caselaw provides that the sentence controls.