Jack H. Meyer v. State

In The Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00066-CR JACK H. MEYER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Nacogdoches County, Texas Trial Court No. CF1800517

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Jack H. Meyer admitted to a Nacogdoches County jury that he drove with an expired registration, the jury found him guilty of the misdemeanor offense, and he was ordered to pay a $150.00 fine and $174.00 in court costs. 1 Meyer appeals. 2

The record in this case indicates that Meyer claims to be a “sovereign citizen,” “a loosely- formed group of citizens who believe that they are sovereign individuals, beyond the reach of any criminal court.” Lewis v. State, 532 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d). “These so-called ‘sovereign citizens’ share a common vernacular and courtroom strategy.” Id. “Courts across the country have encountered their particular brand of obstinacy,” including “raising nonsensical challenges to subject[-]matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 430–31. Meyer’s arguments on appeal are no different.

Meyer argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that Texas law does not apply to him because he is a sovereign citizen. It is well-established, however, that such “sovereignty” arguments are frivolous and that a person’s claim of “[sovereign] status is, at this point in our history, imaginary.” Barcroft v. County of Fannin, 118 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied); see Lewis v. State, 532 S.W.3d 423, 430–31 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d). In fact, we have found these arguments frivolous when raised by Meyer in a prior appeal. Meyer v. State, No. 06-16-00078-CR, 2016 WL 7321444, at *1 (Tex. App.— Texarkana Dec. 16, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). This is because “the presentation of an indictment or information vests the trial court with jurisdiction over the case.” Williams v. State, 356 S.W.3d 508, 519 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d) (citing TEX. CONST. art. V, § 12; Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)).

Because the record establishes that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction and we find Meyer’s sovereign citizen-related complaints meritless, we overrule his sole point of error on appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 5, 2019 Date Decided: September 11, 2019 Do Not Publish