Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 8, 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.
New Talk, Inc. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co. d/b/a AT&T Tex., No. 02-15-00199-CV (May 11, 2017) (Kerr, J., joined by Walker and Gabriel, JJ.).
Held: A Public Utility Commission arbitration award resolving a post-interconnection-agreement billing dispute between New Talk and AT&T Texas was a prior, final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. The award therefore had res-judicata effect in a state-court lawsuit between New Talk and AT&T Texas involving the same claims and defenses that were raised or could have been raised in the PUC proceeding. Thus, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for AT&T Texas on its breach-of-contract claim based on the award’s res-judicata effect.
Horton v. State, No. 02-16-00229-CR (May 11, 2017) (en banc) (Sudderth, J., joined by Walker, Gabriel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ.; Livingston, C.J., dissents with opinion, joined by Meier, J.).
Held: In keeping with the court of criminal appeals’ decision in Salinas v. State, No. PD-0170-16, 2017 WL 915525, at *4, *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2017), we sustain Appellant’s argument that sections 133.102(e)(1) and (6) of the local government code are unconstitutional as they violate the separation of powers clause of the Texas Constitution. However, the Salinas decision limited retroactive modification of court costs to delete those fees to those cases that were pending before the court of criminal appeals as of the date of the opinion. We must follow the directive of the court of criminal appeals and therefore cannot delete those costs in this case. Additionally, we overrule Appellant’s constitutional challenges to section 133.102(e)(5) of the local government code and article 102.0186 of the code of criminal procedure in accordance with our decision in Ingram v. State, 503 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. ref’d).
Dissent: When a statute is facially unconstitutional, it is inoperable in all applications from its inception. The Salinas decision and the majority’s decision in this case recognize the facial unconstitutionality of provisions within section 133.102 of the local government code, grant relief from the unconstitutional provisions to two classes of defendants, yet apply those provisions to defendants like Appellant who have raised the constitutional issue in intermediate appellate courts. Thus, those decisions violate principles of due process, due course of law, equal protection, and equal access to courts.