Steve Jennings v. Richard Guthrie ( 2005 )

Opinion filed December 21, 2005

Opinion filed December 21, 2005 

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-05-00243-CV

                                                    __________

                                      STEVE JENNINGS, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                     RICHARD GUTHRIE, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 35th District Court

                                                          Brown County, Texas

                                               Trial Court Cause No. CV0504149

                                              M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Steve Jennings, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, sued Richard Guthrie seeking $13,017 in actual damages and $75,000 in punitive damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when Guthrie sold his car and sold or gave away his three dogs. The trial court found that the claim was frivolous and that Jennings had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 14.004(a) (Vernon 2002).  The trial court then dismissed the claim.  We affirm.

In his brief, Jennings argues that the trial court erred in determining that his claims were frivolous, that Section 14.004(a) was unconstitutional, and that Section 14.004(a) has not been properly Aauthenticated@ or Aenacted.@

We note that Jennings failed to preserve his constitutional challenges pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Gowan v. Texas Dept. Of Criminal Justice, 99 S.W.3d 319 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 2003, no pet.).  Moreover, the constitutional arguments raised by Jennings have been rejected. Gowan, 99 S.W.3d at 323; Thomas v. Bilby, 40 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App.CTexarkana 2001, no pet.); Thomas v. Bush, 23 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.CBeaumont 2000, pet. den=d).  The challenges that Section 14.004(a) has not been properly authenticated or enacted have also been rejected.  Murphy v. State, 95 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref=d).

Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Jennings had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 14.004(a), we need not address Jennings=s arguments that the trial court erred in finding that his claim was frivolous. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

December 21, 2005

Not designated for publication. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.