COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NOS. 02-15-00235-CR
NOS. 02-15-00236-CR
NOS. 02-15-00237-CR
NOS. 02-15-00238-CR
NOS. 02-15-00239-CR
NOS. 02-15-00240-CR
NOS. 02-15-00241-CR
HAROLD SCHATZ APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 10 OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NOS. G850946-A2584675, G850947-A2584676, G850947-
A2584677, G850948-A2584678, G850948-A2584679, G850948-A2584680,
G850949-A2584681
----------
OPINION
----------
On August 20, 2013, Appellant Harold Schatz was found guilty in the
municipal court of Fort Worth on seven counts of maintaining a substandard
apartment building and was fined $2,000 on three of the counts, $1,262 on two
counts, and $1,562 on the remaining two counts. Schatz appealed in all seven
cases to the county criminal court. The county criminal court dismissed the
cases on June 4, 2015, stating, “The transcript in the . . . appeals do not contain
a judgment that meets the requirements of Articles 42.01 and 45.041 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Without a record containing a judgment, this Court has
no jurisdiction over the appeal.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 42.01,
45.041 (West 2006). On July 8, 2015, Schatz filed notices of appeal in this court.
On July 22, 2015, we notified Schatz of our concern that we lacked
jurisdiction over these appeals. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 30.00027(a) (West
Supp. 2014) (providing that court of appeals has jurisdiction of further appeal
from county court review of municipal court of record judgment if (a) the fine
assessed is greater than $100 and the county court affirms the municipal court’s
judgment or (b) the sole issue is the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance
upon which a conviction is based). We stated that we would dismiss the appeals
unless any party filed a response on or before August 3, 2015, showing that this
court has jurisdiction to consider the appeals.
Schatz filed a response to our letter noting that the fine in each case
exceeded the statutory minimum of $100. However, Schatz did not address the
other statutory requirement that the county court must affirm the municipal court’s
judgment. See id. The county court’s judgment in each of these appeals
dismissed the appeal. Because the county court did not affirm the municipal
court’s judgment, we lack jurisdiction over the appeals. See id.; Flores v. State,
2
462 S.W.3d 551 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 5, 2015, no pet.)
(dismissing appeals for lack of jurisdiction when county criminal court dismissed
appeal of municipal court judgments). We therefore dismiss these appeals for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
/s/ Lee Gabriel
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ.
Publish
DELIVERED: August 13, 2015
3