Difference between revisions of "Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 3"

From Texas Legal Guide
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
|recent=
 
|recent=
 +
 +
* ''In re Reece'', 341 S.W.3d 360, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13629628230375350015#p371 371] (Tex. 2011) (citations omitted) ("Until 1876, this Court possessed the general power to issue writs of habeas corpus, as well as appellate jurisdiction over criminal law matters. . . . At the same time, the Constitution revoked this Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction. In 1891, the Texas Constitution was amended to abolish the Court of Appeals and create the Court of Criminal Appeals, limiting the Court of Criminal Appeals' appellate jurisdiction to criminal law matters, and granting this Court habeas corpus jurisdiction once more, but only as 'may be prescribed by law.' This constitutional provision has remained unchanged for over 100 years.")
  
 
* ''Harrell v. State'', 286 S.W.3d 315, [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13743354384926907897 316] (Tex. 2009) ("We conclude that proceedings under Government Code section 501.014(e) to recover court fees and costs assessed against inmates are civil in nature and not part of the underlying criminal case. Such post-judgment collection efforts are designed to reimburse the State, not to punish the inmate, and due process is satisfied if the inmate receives notice and the opportunity to be heard after funds are withdrawn.")
 
* ''Harrell v. State'', 286 S.W.3d 315, [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13743354384926907897 316] (Tex. 2009) ("We conclude that proceedings under Government Code section 501.014(e) to recover court fees and costs assessed against inmates are civil in nature and not part of the underlying criminal case. Such post-judgment collection efforts are designed to reimburse the State, not to punish the inmate, and due process is satisfied if the inmate receives notice and the opportunity to be heard after funds are withdrawn.")

Latest revision as of 11:41, October 12, 2019

As amended November 6, 2001:

(a) The Supreme Court shall exercise the judicial power of the state except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the limits of the State and its determinations shall be final except in criminal law matters. Its appellate jurisdiction shall be final and shall extend to all cases except in criminal law matters and as otherwise provided in this Constitution or by law. The Supreme Court and the Justices thereof shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, as may be prescribed by law, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, the said courts [sic] and the Justices thereof may issue the writs of mandamus, procedendo, certiorari and such other writs, as may be necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. The Legislature may confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus in such cases as may be specified, except as against the Governor of the State.

(b) The Supreme Court shall also have power, upon affidavit or otherwise as by the court may be determined, to ascertain such matters of fact as may be necessary to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.

Editor Comments

This section, which defines the Supreme Court's authority, was substantially revised in 1980. See, e.g., Joe Greenhill, The Constitutional Amendment Giving Criminal Jurisdiction to the Texas Courts of Civil Appeals and Recognizing the Inherent Power of the Texas Supreme Court, 33 Tex.Tech.L.Rev. 377, 392 (2002) ("It made clear that the supreme court had residual powers, which translated into inherent power.").

The language in Article V, Section 6 that makes decisions of Courts of Appeals final "on all questions of fact brought before them on appeal or error" is a limitation on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

Steve Smith

Recent Decisions

  • In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 371 (Tex. 2011) (citations omitted) ("Until 1876, this Court possessed the general power to issue writs of habeas corpus, as well as appellate jurisdiction over criminal law matters. . . . At the same time, the Constitution revoked this Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction. In 1891, the Texas Constitution was amended to abolish the Court of Appeals and create the Court of Criminal Appeals, limiting the Court of Criminal Appeals' appellate jurisdiction to criminal law matters, and granting this Court habeas corpus jurisdiction once more, but only as 'may be prescribed by law.' This constitutional provision has remained unchanged for over 100 years.")
  • Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 (Tex. 2009) ("We conclude that proceedings under Government Code section 501.014(e) to recover court fees and costs assessed against inmates are civil in nature and not part of the underlying criminal case. Such post-judgment collection efforts are designed to reimburse the State, not to punish the inmate, and due process is satisfied if the inmate receives notice and the opportunity to be heard after funds are withdrawn.")
  • Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local No. 1338, 273 S.W.3d 659, 666 (Tex. 2008) (footnotes omitted) ("Although there was no statutory basis for this Court to take jurisdiction of the case, we concluded that we were constitutionally required to do so: 'We hold that under Article V, Sections 1 and 3, of the Constitution of Texas, the Supreme Court of Texas possesses the power, and thus the duty, to correct a decision of a Court of Civil Appeals that conflicts with the 'supreme law of the land' as established by the Congress and Supreme Court of the United States.'")
  • In re Nolo Press/Folk Law, Inc., 991 S.W.2d 768, 769-70 (Tex. 1999) (footnotes omitted) ("The Supreme Court of Texas has inherent power to regulate the practice of law in Texas for the benefit and protection of the justice system and the people as a whole. The Court's inherent power is derived in part from Article II, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, which divides State governmental power among three departments. The authority conveyed to the Supreme Court by this constitutional provision includes the regulation of judicial affairs and the direction of the administration of justice in the judicial department. Within this authority is the power to govern the practice of law.")

Historic Decisions

  • Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 399-400 (Tex. 1979) ("The language of Hughes was overbroad when it categorically denied the existence of the inherent power of a court . . . . Several other cases decided by this court have similarly stated that inherent powers of the court do not exist; however, closer examination reveals that such statements which have negated the existence of inherent power were made to deny the existence of a court's inherent 'jurisdictional' power. Our holdings have simply been that we have no inherent power to take jurisdiction of a case when that jurisdiction has been expressly or impliedly granted to another court of this state.")
  • Pope v. Ferguson, 445 S.W.2d 950, 952 (Tex. 1969) (citation omitted) ("By his petition he asks only that the trial judge be directed to dismiss the criminal charge pending against him. . . . This court was created by the Constitution of the State of Texas and has only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by the Constitution and statutes of the State. The court has no 'inherent power' and not even the Supreme Court of the United States can confer upon it a power or jurisdiction beyond the limitations imposed by the source of its existence. This is not a lately developed philosophy, born of a desire to escape responsibility in a troublesome area of the law.")
  • Morrow v. Corbin, 62 S.W.2d 641, 644-651 (Tex. 1933) (citations omitted) ("'Judicial power' is the power of a court to decide and pronounce a judgment and carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for a decision. 'Jurisdiction' of a particular court is that portion of the judicial power which it has been authorized to exercise by the Constitution or by valid statutes.... We know of no rule by which the constitutional basis for existing certification statutes may be extended to the act before us, which calls for advisory action only, and requires no judgment or decree upon which the appellate power of the revisory courts may act.")
  • Choate v. San Antonio & A.P. Ry., 44 S.W. 69, 69 (Tex. 1898) ("That in this action we neither exceeded our powers nor intrenched upon the jurisdiction of the court of civil appeals there is no doubt. 'Whether there be any evidence or not is a question for the judge; whether it is sufficient evidence is a question for the jury.' 1 Greenl. Ev. § 491. So that it is elementary that whether there be any evidence or not to support an issue is a question of law, and not of fact, and it follows that the decision of the court of civil appeals upon such a question is subject to review by this court.")
  • May v. Finley, 43 S.W. 257, 258 (Tex. 1897) (citations omitted) ("The court of criminal appeals, in cases properly arising before them, have held such legislation in conflict with the constitution. The same question came before us in a civil proceeding, and, while we felt the importance of maintaining uniformity of decision between our two courts of last resort, and recognized as well the learning and ability of that court as the force of the argument by which they supported their conclusion, we were constrained to differ from them, and to hold the legislation constitutional. . . . The constitution provides no means by which a conflict can be determined or reconciled.")

Library Resources

Online Resources