Sven Erik Johansson v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                       In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    ________________
    NO. 09-14-00221-CR
    ________________
    SVEN ERIK JOHANSSON, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    __________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 1A District Court
    Tyler County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 10205
    __________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    A jury convicted Sven Erik Johansson of aggravated assault with a deadly
    weapon and assessed punishment at four years of confinement. Johansson appeals
    from the trial court’s judgment revoking his shock community supervision and
    imposing sentence. In his sole appellate issue, Johansson contends the trial court
    erred by denying his motion for change of venue, which he filed after his
    conviction but prior to revocation of his shock community supervision. We affirm
    the trial court’s judgment.
    1
    BACKGROUND
    A jury convicted Johansson of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In
    accordance with the jury’s verdict as to both guilt-innocence and punishment, the
    trial court signed a judgment which assessed punishment at four years of
    confinement. After a few months of confinement, the trial court ordered Johansson
    returned from TDCJ and placed him on shock community supervision for four
    years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Johansson’s community
    supervision.
    Two days before the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Johansson
    filed a motion for change of venue, in which he alleged that the judicial system as a
    whole is prejudiced against him such that he cannot receive a fair trial in Tyler
    County. The motion was not verified, and Johansson did not include any affidavits
    with his motion. The trial court denied Johansson’s motion for change of venue,
    conducted an evidentiary hearing, found the allegations in the State’s motion to
    revoke to be true, revoked Johansson’s shock community supervision, and assessed
    punishment at four years of confinement in TDCJ.
    2
    ISSUE ONE
    In his sole appellate issue, Johansson challenges the trial court’s denial of his
    motion for change of venue. Article 31.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal
    Procedure provides as follows, in pertinent part:
    (a) the written motion of the defendant, supported by his own
    affidavit and the affidavit of at least two credible persons, residents of
    the county where the prosecution is instituted, for . . . the following
    cause[], the truth and sufficiency of which the court shall determine:
    1. That there exists in the county where the prosecution is
    commenced so great a prejudice against him that he cannot obtain a
    fair and impartial trial[.]
    Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 31.03(a)(1) (West 2006) (emphasis added). In his
    brief, Johansson concedes that he did not include the affidavits of two credible
    Tyler County residents, but he argues that his ability to obtain the two required
    affidavits demonstrates the truth of the allegations in his motion. Johansson cites
    no authority for this proposition.
    We review a trial court’s ruling on motions for change of venue under an
    abuse of discretion standard. Dewberry v. State, 
    4 S.W.3d 735
    , 744 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 1999). Omission of the statutorily-required affidavits required renders a
    motion for change of venue fatally defective. Brooks v. State, 
    418 S.W.2d 835
    , 836
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) (op. on reh’g). A trial court does not abuse its discretion
    when it denies a motion for change of venue that does not meet the statutory
    3
    requirements. Christopher v. State, 
    489 S.W.2d 573
    , 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973);
    Cover v. State, 
    913 S.W.2d 611
    , 616 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, pet. ref’d). We
    therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying
    Johansson’s motion for change of venue. See 
    Christopher, 489 S.W.2d at 574
    ;
    
    Brooks, 418 S.W.2d at 836
    ; 
    Cover, 913 S.W.2d at 616
    . Accordingly, we overrule
    issue one and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    AFFIRMED.
    ________________________________
    STEVE McKEITHEN
    Chief Justice
    Submitted on April 1, 2015
    Opinion Delivered April 22, 2015
    Do Not Publish
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-14-00221-CR

Filed Date: 4/22/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015