Noemi O. Casillas v. Pecos County Community Action Agency--Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-95-00299-CV

Case Date: 12/06/1995

Plaintiff: Aaron Wade Stine

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 220th District Court of Bosque County

Preview:Aaron Wade Stine v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
220th District Court of Bosque County
Stine v. State /**/
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-93-038-CR
AARON WADE STINE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 220th District Court
Bosque County, Texas
Trial Court # 92-10-11616-BCCR
O P I N I O N
A jury convicted Aaron Wade Stine of aggravated assault and assessed punishment at twenty years in prison. The court
also made an affirmative finding that Stine used a deadly weapon in the commission of the aggravated assault. In a
single point, Stine contends that the court erred in conducting trial proceedings and receiving testimony outside the
county seat of Bosque County. We reverse.
During the first day of Stine's trial the prosecution presented fourteen witnesses. However, the complaining witness,
Johnny Verzwyvelt, was hospitalized and unable to appear in court. On the second day of trial, the court, jurors,
attorneys, and Stine assembled in the Goodall-Witcher Hospital in Clifton to hear the testimony of Verzwyvelt and his
doctor. Clifton is not the county seat of Bosque County.
Stine's lawyer did not object. In fact, he agreed that taking the doctor's testimony at the hospital was "the most efficient
way to do it."
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/929.html[8/20/2013 7:09:06 PM]

Stine argues that the court erred in conducting trial proceedings and receiving testimony outside the county seat of
Bosque County. The Texas Constitution states that "[t]he Court shall conduct its proceedings at the county seat of the
county in which the case is pending, except as otherwise provided by law." Tex. Const. art. V, 7. This constitutional
requirement is considered jurisdictional. Isbill v. Stovall, 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1072 (Tex. App. Eastland 1936, no writ).
The constitution and statutes are the sole source of jurisdiction, and there is nothing the parties can do to confer
jurisdiction where it does not exist. Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Thus, it is irrelevant
that the parties agreed to hear two witnesses at the hospital and not in the courthouse at the county seat. See id. We
sustain the point, reverse the judgment, and remand the cause for a new trial.
BOB L. THOMAS
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Thomas,
Justice Cummings, and
Justice Vance
Reversed and remanded
Opinion delivered and filed November 3, 1993
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/929.html[8/20/2013 7:09:06 PM]

Download 929.pdf