Blakeney v. Holmes

JASON BLAKENEY, Appellant

v.CLIFTON L. HOLMES AND JOE SHUMATE, Appellees

No. 06-10-00075-CV

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Date Submitted: November 9, 2010

Date Decided: November 10, 2010

On Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court

Rusk County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-379

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice CarterMEMORANDUM OPINION

Jason Blakeney was represented by appointed counsel Clifton L. Holmes and Joe Shumate after being indicted for capital murder in 2002. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Blakeney pled guilty to a lesser included offense of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Over six years later, Blakeney filed an action for fraudulent misrepresentation, "tortious interference with prosecutive business relations," and breach of fiduciary duty against his appointed counsel, claiming they had reneged on a promise to pay him $8,000.00 to plead guilty to murder so they would not have to go to trial.

Holmes and Shumate filed no evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment denying the existence of such an agreement. In his response, Blakeney referred to the following as summary judgment evidence: ¹ Holmes' responses to requests for admission denying any promise for payment made to Blakeney; docket sheets from Blakeney's criminal case; a letter from the Holmes law office enclosing copies of "TDCJ inmate trust fund deposit slip and Regions Bank money order secured by Defendant Holmes," which Blakeney's pleadings argued were a first installment of the $8,000.00 promised; and proof that Holmes and Shumate represented him in the criminal case. The trial court granted Holmes' and Shumate's motions for summary judgment.

We affirm the trial court's judgments.²

I. Blakeney Did Not Preserve Error on Recusal and Default Judgment Points of Error

Blakeney alleges for the first time on appeal that the trial judge was required to recuse due to possible impartiality. He also complains of the trial court's failure to rule on his motion for default judgment. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must make the complaint to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Preservation also requires one of three things: (1) an express ruling by the trial court; (2) an implicit ruling by the trial court; or (3) a refusal to rule by the trial court, coupled with an objection to that refusal by the complaining party. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2). This record contains no evidence that the issue of recusal was raised with the trial court. Also, the motion for default judgment was filed after Holmes had answered the suit and six days before Shumate filed his answer. Consequently, there is no ruling on the motion for default judgment and no objection to the trial court's refusal to rule, if any. The record demonstrates that these issues were not preserved below, and we decline to address them. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.

II. Trial Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment

A. Standard of Review

Next, Blakeney raises eight other grounds, essentially complaining that the trial court erredin granting the motions for summary judgment.³ We employ a de novo review of the trial court's grant of a summary judgment, which is based on written pleadings and written evidence. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005); Lamar v. City of Longview, 270 S.W.3d 609, 613 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.); see Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). Summary judgment is proper if Holmes and Shumate established that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); French v. Gill, 252 S.W.3d 748, 751 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); Powers v. Adams, 2 S.W.3d 496, 497 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co, 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985)).

During our analysis of the traditional motion, and in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue which precludes summary judgment, proof favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true, and every reasonable inference will be indulged in their favor. Limestone Prods. Distrib., Inc. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308, 311 (Tex. 2002); Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. A no-evidence summary judgment is essentially a pretrial directed verdict. We, therefore, apply the same legal sufficiency standard in reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment as we apply in reviewing a directed verdict to determine whether the nonmovant produced any evidence ofprobative force to raise a fact issue on the material questions presented. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002); Woodruff v. Wright, 51 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. denied). Blakeney will defeat a no-evidence summary judgment motion if he presents more than a scintilla of probative evidence on each element of his claim. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003).

The trial court's summary judgments specified no particular ground as supporting the summary judgment. When, as is the case here, the trial court does not set out the grounds on which it ruled, we affirm the summary judgment if any ground urged in the motion for summary judgment is meritorious. W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. 2005).

B. Application

To raise an issue of fact regarding his fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Blakeney was required to produce more than a scintilla of probative evidence on the first element that Holmes and Shumate made a material representation; in this case, that there was a promise to pay $8,000.00 in exchange for Blakeney's plea of guilt. Tex. Integrated Conveyor Sys., Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 348, 366 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied); Baribeau v. Gustafson, 107 S.W.3d 52, 58 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. denied). The only documents referencing such an agreement were Blakeney's pleadings. "Neither pleadings nor responses to summary judgment motions constitute summary judgment evidence." Watson v. Frost Nat'l Bank, 139 S.W.3d 118, 119 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (citing Laidlaw Waste Sys., 904 S.W.2d at 660). Moreover, a document relied on by Blakeney, Holmes' responses to requests for admission, specifically denied the existence of a material representation. We find that Blakeney presented no proof of the first element of his fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

Next, in order to avoid summary judgment on his tortious interference with business relations cause of action, Blakeney was required to present more than a scintilla of evidence that: (1) there was a reasonable probability that he would have entered into a contractual relationship; (2) an independently tortious or unlawful act by Holmes and Shumate prevented the relationship from occurring; (3) the act was done with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or with knowledge that the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of his conduct; and (4) Blakeney suffered actual harm or damage as a result of the interference. See Finlan v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 90 S.W.3d 395, 412 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2002, pet....