Court of Appeals provides insight into judicial process

by Jason Hartline, news editor

As an audience gathered into the Sundown Room of the Student Center on the Levelland campus at South Plains College, three District Seven Court of Appeals Justices waited patiently to be announced into the room.

The Sundown Room was the site of four case hearings by the 7^th Court of Appeals on March 4.

The Court of Appeals is composed of four justices. However, appeals are decided by panels of three judges working together. Chief Justice Brian Quinn, Justice James T. Campbell, Justice Mackey K. Hancock and Justice Patrick A. Pirtle make up the District Seven Court of Appeals.

It has intermediate appellate jurisdiction of both civil and criminal cases appealed from lower courts in 46 counties of Texas; in civil cases, where judgment rendered exceeds $100, exclusive of costs and other civil proceedings as provided by law; and in criminal cases, except in post-conviction writs of habeas corpus and where the death penalty has been imposed. 

“The purpose of the court being held here at South Plains College is very academic,” said Chief Justice Quinn. “It gives the public and students a chance to see how things are run, and to witness the judicial process. The attorneys will speak, and we will ask questions. It may seem like we are leaning one way or the other, but we are really just playing devil’s advocate.”

A litigant who files an appeal, known as an appellant, must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case.

The Court of Appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were clearly erroneous.

The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in writing, in a document called a brief. In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that its decision should be reversed.

 On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the appellee, tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any error made by the trial court was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.

Although some cases are decided on the basis of written briefs alone, many cases are selected for an oral argument before the court. This structured discussion between the appellate lawyers and the panel of judges is what was held at SPC.

Each side focuses on the legal principles in the dispute and is given a short amount of time to present arguments to the court. In this case, the judges granted the appellant and appellee 20 minutes a piece, with an additional five minutes given to the appellant at the end of the oral argument.

The cases heard by the judges on March 4 involved many different situations that had the potential to become very complicated.

One case in particular involved the best interests of a child under the age of 3 and how extensive its father’s custody rights could be. Prior to the appeal, the trial court ruled a denial of all custody rights to the father.

The father was a bi-polar methamphetamine addict. Anna McKim, attorney for the appellant, argued that the father had more than 1,700 days of sobriety and had complied with the trial court’s conditions imposed on him.

These conditions included the father attending counseling where the psychologist would be required to submit a written evaluation every six months, attending Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous, and taking all prescribed medication, among other things not specified.

“The trial court has no authority to impose conditions of this severity,” said McKim. “More so, the conditions state no specification toward the best interests of the child. The court’s vagueness creates only an infringement upon his own medical judgment.”

Donald M. Hunt, attorney for the appellee, said that the trial judge was only trying to lower the risk of the child from ages 3 -5 in his opposition statement.

When asked about the significance of ages 3-5 and why such importance is placed on these ages, Hunt responded, “at age 5 the child is more capable of realizing a potential problem.”

Hunt also pointed out that the father had recently relapsed on drugs and had disappeared for two days. Also, an individual with a bi-polar condition always has a continuous risk.

Questions also arose regarding limitations the trial court should have on the conditions imposed.

“Of course, the court should have limitations,” said Hunt, “if here is no evidence supporting the conditions. If the conditions are supported with facts, limitations on the custody of the child must be imposed, not on the court.”

 The Court of Appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

"It was an honor to host the court on campus,” said Dane Dewbre, associate dean of College Relations. “It provided a great opportunity to see the state judicial process in action. We hope to have them back very soon."