James L. Sweed v. Alejandrina Jaime, Official Court Reporter in and for the 210th District Court and Jaime Esparza, District Attorney of El Paso County, Texas--Appeal from 346th District Court of El P

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 8th District Court of Appeals » 2004 » James L. Sweed v. Alejandrina Jaime, Official Court Reporter in and for the 210th District Court and Jaime Esparza, District Attorney of El Paso County, Texas--Appeal from 346th District Court of El P

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 08-03-00271-CV

Case Date: 11/04/2004

Plaintiff: James L. Sweed

Defendant: Alejandrina Jaime, Official Court Reporter in and for the 210th District Court and Jaime Esparza, D

Preview:James L. Sweed v. Alejandrina Jaime, Official Court Reporter in and for the 210th District Court and Jaime Esparza, District Attorney of El Paso County, Texas-Appeal from 346th District Court of El Paso County
COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS JAMES LEE SWEED, ) ) No. 08-03-00271-CV Appellant, ) ) Appeal from the v. ) ) 346th District Court ALEJANDRINA JAIME and JAIME ) ESPARZA, ) of El Paso County, Texas ) Appellees. ) (TC# 2002-5576) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION James Lee Sweed, a pro se inmate, appeals from an order dismissing his Section 1983 suit filed against Alejandrina Jaime, official court reporter of the 210th District Court of El Paso County and Jaime Esparza, 34th District Attorney. We affirm. FACTUAL SUMMARY

In his suit, Sweed alleged that Jaime violated his civil rights by altering the reporter=s record to reflect that Sweed had judicially confessed to aggravated assault when he had not so confessed. He further alleged that both defendants have fraudulently concealed Jaime=s alteration of the court records in order to deny Sweed access to the courts. Sweed=s pleadings are accompanied by an affidavit of inability to pay court costs. Jaime and Esparza filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. ' 14.002(a)(Vernon 2002). Their motion, supported by certified copies of the plea papers, states that Sweed entered a
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/63133.html[8/20/2013 8:10:33 PM]

negotiated plea of guilty to aggravated assault in cause number 69262-171 on November 1, 1993. In accordance with the plea bargain, the court assessed punishment at imprisonment for a term of twelve years but did not make a deadly weapon finding. Jaime and Esparza sought dismissal of Sweed=s suit based upon his failure to supply the required affidavits and because his suit is frivolous. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss without a hearing and without specifying the precise basis for the dismissal. INMATE LITIGATION Sweed challenges the dismissal order by three issues. In Issue One, Sweed contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his suit as frivolous. In Issue Two, he argues that the court erred by dismissing his suit for failure to comply with the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In his third issue, Sweed asserts that the court improperly dismissed his suit because it raises issues related to his criminal trial.

With the exception of suits brought under the Family Code, inmate litigation in which the inmate files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs is governed by special procedural rules set out in Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex.Civ. Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. ' 14.002; Jackson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, 28 S.W.3d 811, 812 13 (Tex.App. -Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied). The Legislature enacted Chapter 14 to control the flood of frivolous suits being filed in Texas courts by prison inmates, as these suits consume valuable judicial resources with little offsetting benefit. Jackson, 28 S.W.3d at 813. Under this Chapter, a trial court has broad discretion to dismiss a claim, either before or after service of process, if the court finds that: (1) the allegation of poverty in the affidavit or unsworn declaration is false; (2) the claim is frivolous or malicious; or (3) the inmate filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration required by Chapter 14 that the inmate knew was false.[1] Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. ' 14.003(a); see Jackson, 28 S.W.3d at 813. In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether: (1) the claim=s realistic chance of ultimate success is slight; (2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or in fact; (3) it is clear that the party cannot prove facts in support of the claim; or (4) the claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts. Tex.Civ. Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. ' 14.003(b). In making such a determination, the trial court may hold a hearing, and that hearing may be held before or after service of process and on the motion of the court, a party, or the court clerk. Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. ' 14.003(c). Attached to Sweed=s original petition is a copy of the judgment and sentence entered in cause number 69262. It reflects that Sweed voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to serve a twelve-year term of imprisonment. The plea papers signed by Sweed contain the following judicial confession: I do now hereby, in open court, admit all the allegations in the indictment in the cause and I confess that I committed the offense charged in the indictment, waiving the rights to which Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure entitles me, particularly the right to require sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the court, in view of my judicial confession herein made.

The document is signed and approved by the judge hearing the guilty plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Sweed=s suit is frivolous. Issue One is overruled. Given our resolution of Issue One, it is not necessary to address Issues Two or Three. The order dismissing Sweed=s suit with prejudice is affirmed. November 4, 2004 RICHARD BARAJAS, Chief Justice Before Panel No. 4 Barajas, C.J., Larsen and McClure, JJ.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/63133.html[8/20/2013 8:10:33 PM]

[1] The inmate is required to file an affidavit or declaration providing details pertaining to each suit previously brought by the inmate and stating the result of the suit. Tex.Civ.Prac.&Rem.Code Ann. ' 14.004 (Vernon 2002).

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/63133.html[8/20/2013 8:10:33 PM]

Download 63133.pdf