$17,060.00 U.S. Currency (Christopher M. Cassity) v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00273-CV
__________________

$17,060.00 U.S. CURRENCY (CHRISTOPHER M. CASSITY), Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23DCCV01239
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 12, 2024, Christopher M. Cassity filed a petition for a permissive

appeal from an order denying what he styled as a “Special Appearance” in an asset

forfeiture case. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3.

The trial court denied Cassity’s Special Appearance after hearing arguments

in a non-evidentiary hearing. An amended order signed by the trial court on July 30,

2024, grants permission to appeal the trial court’s denial and finds there is a

controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference

1
of opinion regarding “[w]hether Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted its suit to prevent

dismissal for violation of limitation of actions.” Cassity contends the State failed to

exercise due diligence in perfecting service as a matter of law. The State argues a

permissive appeal is neither ripe nor appropriate because untried contested fact

issues predominate over legal issues.

The trial court denied the “Special Appearance” and could have determined

that Cassity failed to establish that he is entitled to have his special appearance

granted “as a matter of law.” Here, the question presented is whether the State

exercised due diligence. That question is dependent upon the underlying facts and

not on a legal issue on which there is a substantial difference of opinion. The facts

should be developed in the trial court. Additionally, we cannot agree that granting

permission to appeal materially advances this case.

We deny the petition for a permissive appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(l).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 25, 2024
Opinion Delivered September 26, 2024

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

2