williamson-county-honorable-dan-a-gattis-honorable-suzanne-brooks ( 2010 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

---

ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

---

---

NO. 03-06-00600-CV

---

Williamson County, Honorable Dan A. Gattis, Honorable Suzanne Brooks,

Honorable Tim Wright, Honorable Donald Higginbotham,

and Honorable William Thomas Eastes, in their official capacities, Appellants

v.

Kerry Heckman, Monica Maisenbacher, Sylvia Peterson, Tammy Newberry,

Elveda Vieira, and Jessica Stempko, on behalf of themselves

and all other persons similarly situated, Appellees

---

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 06-453-C277, HONORABLE JOSEPH H. HART, JUDGE PRESIDING

---

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N  

I withdraw my prior concurring opinion and substitute this opinion respectfully dissenting. In light of (i) appellants' motion to dismiss and supplemental briefing citing "intervening developments," ⁽¹⁾ which are recited and recognized by the majority and are relevant to whether the claims remain live and appellees have standing, and (ii) the passage of time since the appeal in this case was filed in 2006, I would remand to the district court for a hearing to determine if changed circumstances have rendered appellees' claims moot since the district court denied in 2006 appellants' plea to the jurisdiction in its entirety.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: July 16, 2010

1. Among other developments, appellants recite that "Williamson County has adopted a new policy for dealing with court appointed counsel, has added an additional magistrate lawyer, and has hired an indigent defense coordinator to ensure that everyone who is entitled to a court appointed attorney and requests a court appointed attorney will get one" thus supplanting the plan in effect during events in this cause; the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 1178 which became effective September 1, 2007, adding "additional requirements for appointing counsel to indigent defendants;" and, in 2009 the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of Davis v. Tarrant County, Tex., 565 F.3d 214, 228 (5th Cir. 2009), in which the court recognized a party had standing to challenge the establishment and implementation of a county policy for the appointment of counsel to represent indigent defendants.