Austin Court of Appeals holds dog owner entitled to jury trial in appeal from municipal court of record
In re: Linda Pool, 03-18-00299-CV (Tex. App. – Austin, January 23, 2019)
This is a mandamus case where the Austin Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ requiring a county court-at-law to hold a jury trial on a dangerous dog determination appeal.
Pool owns a dog named Pepper, who allegedly attacked a jogger named Hoffman. An independent hearing examiner took sworn testimony and determined Pepper was a “dangerous dog” under §822.041(2) of the Texas Health and Safety Code. Pool appealed the decision to the Austin Municipal Court. The municipal judge, without a jury, held a hearing and confirmed Pepper was a dangerous dog. Pool appealed to the county court-at-law and requested a jury trial de novo. The state argued that since the Austin Municipal Court is a court of record, any appeal is based on errors in the record and no de novo appeal is possible. The trial court held Pool was not entitled to a de novo review. Pool brought this mandamus action to compel a jury trial.
The court held this was a case of statutory interpretation. Under Chapter 30 of the Texas Government Code, appeals from a court of record are only appeals on the record. Tex. Gov’t Code §30.00014(b). However, §822.0424 states that a party “to an appeal under Section 822.0421(d)… may appeal the decision… and is entitled to a jury trial on request.” The court noted that subsection (a) of §30.00014 states an appeal can be had from a judgment or conviction, but subsection (b) (which states an appeal is on the record only) simply references the word “conviction” and not “judgment.” The court essentially held that a conviction equals criminal matters and a “judgment” equals civil matters for purposes of appeal. Since “judgment” was not mentioned in subsection (b) regarding the form of appeal, the form of appeal is not always on the record. Since §822.0424 states the appellate can make a jury trial request, the county court-at-law was required to grant the request. The court further held, in a footnote, that if the two statutes could not be harmonized, §822.0424 would still win out as the most recently passed provision. It conditionally granted the writ.
If you would like to read this opinion, click here. Panel consists of Chief Justice Rose, Justice Goodwin and Justice Baker. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Goodwin. The attorney listed for Pool is Ms. Anna Eby. The attorneys listed for the Travis County Attorney’s Office, real party in interest are David A. Escamilla, Tim Labadie and Annalynn C. Cox.