in Re William Thomas Leonard , 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6921 ( 2013 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00081-CV
IN RE WILLIAM THOMAS RELATOR
LEONARD
----------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
----------
OPINION
----------
I. Introduction
Relator William Thomas Leonard seeks mandamus relief from the trial
court’s December 4, 2012 order purporting to extend Leonard’s term of
community supervision an additional five years. 1 Leonard contends that the trial
1
Leonard originally appealed from the December 4, 2012 order, but in his
response to our jurisdictional inquiry, he requested that the court treat his appeal
as an original proceeding for mandamus relief. The court thereafter converted
court had no jurisdiction in December 2012 to extend the term of his community
supervision because his original five-year term expired in November 2009. We
conditionally grant Leonard’s petition for writ of mandamus.
II. Background
Leonard pleaded guilty on November 24, 2004, to bodily injury to a child.
The trial court deferred adjudication of Leonard’s guilt and placed him on
community supervision for a term of five years beginning that same day. The
terms of Leonard’s community supervision were supplemented or amended
numerous times between 2004 and 2008, but the five-year term was never
extended. In October 2008, the State moved for adjudication of Leonard’s guilt,
alleging in part that Leonard had on two occasions “submitted to polygraph
testing and revealed significant criteria indicative of deception,” and a capias
issued for Leonard’s arrest. After a hearing on December 5, 2008, the trial court
adjudicated Leonard guilty and sentenced him to seven years’ incarceration.
Leonard appealed his adjudication of guilt, and his original five-year term
of community supervision expired in November 2009 while his appeal was
pending. On April 15, 2010, the Eastland Court of Appeals reversed Leonard’s
conviction, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the reversal on
November 21, 2012. See Leonard v. State, 315 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2010), aff’d, 385 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The court of
this proceeding into an original proceeding for mandamus relief and permitted the
State an opportunity to respond.
2
criminal appeals’s mandate issued on December 17, 2012. On December 4,
2012, however, the trial court signed an order purporting to extend Leonard’s
community supervision for five additional years, said extension retroactively
beginning on August 2, 2012.
III. Discussion
Article 42.12, section 21(b) of the code of criminal procedure provides, “At
any time during the period of community supervision the judge may issue a
warrant for violation of any of the conditions of the community supervision and
cause the defendant to be arrested.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, §
21(b) (West Supp. 2012). Section 21(e) further provides that “[a] court retains
jurisdiction to hold a hearing under Subsection (b) and to revoke, continue, or
modify community supervision, regardless of whether the period of community
supervision imposed on the defendant has expired” if the State files a motion to
revoke, continue, or modify the community supervision and a capias for the
defendant’s arrest is issued before the expiration of the period of community
supervision. Id. art. 42.12, § 21(e).
However, the filing of a motion to revoke does not toll the period of
community supervision, even when there is an appeal from the revocation of
community supervision. Nicklas v. State, 530 S.W.2d 537, 541 (Tex. Crim. App.
1975) (holding probationary term not tolled during pendency of appeal); see Ex
parte Miller, 552 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Maldonado v. State,
3
115 S.W.3d 212, 214 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref’d) (“When an
appeal is taken from an order revoking community supervision, the probationary
period continues to run unabated until it expires or until a revocation order is
entered and becomes final.”); Herrera v. State, 756 S.W.2d 882, 883 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 1988, no pet.). Explaining this principle, the court of
criminal appeals held as follows:
The State further, in justification of the trial court’s action,
urges that the filing of the original motion and the issuance of the
capias tolled the running of the probationary period [during the
appeal]. The cases cited do not support that proposition. The
State’s argument, if carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that
in every revocation of probation case reversed by this court long
after the expiration of the probationary period an amended motion
could then be filed on the claim that the filing of the original motion of
revocation and the issuance of the warrant tolled the running of the
probationary period. The law has never permitted this type of action
after the expiration of the probationary period.
Nicklas, 530 S.W.2d at 541.
Leonard contends that, under these authorities, the trial court was without
jurisdiction in December 2012 to extend his community supervision term because
his five-year community supervision term was not tolled pending his appeal and
therefore expired in November 2009. The State does not dispute that Leonard’s
term of community supervision had expired in November 2009 while Leonard’s
appeal remained pending, nor does the State argue that the trial court was
permitted to rule for a second time on the State’s 2008 motion to revoke. Rather,
the State contends that Leonard should be estopped from challenging the trial
4
court’s December 2012 order. The State argues that “Relator was allowed to
reap the benefits of deferred adjudication and now turns around and claims that
the trial court had no authority or jurisdiction to extend his supervision as the time
had expired while he was appealing the adjudication.” Estoppel, however,
cannot apply if the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction over Leonard’s
case. Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“The only
exception to this [estoppel by judgment] principle is for challenges to the subject-
matter jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment.”); see generally Gutierrez
v. State, 380 S.W.3d 167, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We must therefore
determine whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Leonard’s
case in December 2012 when it purported to extend the term of his community
supervision.
We agree with the State that the court of criminal appeals has
differentiated between a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and a trial court’s
authority to take certain actions. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 559–
60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (holding district court’s untimely referral of case to
magistrate was not jurisdictional issue that could be raised for first time on
appeal); Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1981) (holding improper venue does not affect the district court’s power to hear
and determine a felony case); Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524, 527–28 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (orig. proceeding) (holding trial court had no
5
jurisdiction to reinstate felony case following incorrect dismissal for violation of
speedy trial act). We also agree that the court of criminal appeals has on
occasion used the term “authority” rather than jurisdiction when referring to a trial
court’s ability to modify, extend, or revoke community supervision after expiration
of the term. See Ex parte Fulce, 993 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)
(“A court has no authority to act outside the periods permitted by statute.” (citing
Houlihan v. State, 579 S.W.2d 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979))). We cannot agree,
however, that past references to a trial court’s “authority” to extend, modify, or
revoke community supervision currently mean that the trial court in this case
lacked authority but did not lack jurisdiction to extend the term of Leonard’s
community supervision more than three years after the original five-year term
had expired.
The express language of article 42.12, section 21(e) of the code of criminal
procedure refers to a trial court’s “jurisdiction” to revoke, continue, or modify the
terms of a defendant’s community supervision and provides that if the State files
a motion to revoke, continue, or modify the community supervision and a capias
for the defendant’s arrest is issued before the expiration of the period of
community supervision, “[a] court retains jurisdiction to hold a hearing . . . and to
revoke, continue, or modify community supervision, regardless of whether the
period of community supervision imposed on the defendant has expired.” Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(e) (emphasis added). Article 42.12,
6
section 5(h) also expressly states that a court “retains jurisdiction” to adjudicate
guilt beyond the term of community supervision if the State had filed a motion to
adjudicate and a capias had issued before the term expired. Id. art. 42.12, §
5(h).
Moreover, although the court of criminal appeals used the term “authority”
in Fulce in 1999 when it wrote that “[a] court has no authority to act outside the
periods permitted by statute,” 993 S.W.2d at 662, the court of criminal appeals
three years later expressly interpreted Fulce to mean that a trial court has no
jurisdiction to act if there is no motion to revoke filed before the expiration of
community supervision, holding,
The applicant’s probationary period expired without a pending
motion to revoke. Under Fulce, any action taken after that was
without jurisdiction. Both the trial court’s order purporting to reinstate
the motion to revoke probation, and the trial court’s order revoking
the applicant’s probation, were entered outside the probationary
period and were thus made without jurisdiction.
Ex parte Donaldson, 86 S.W.3d 231, 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (emphasis
added) (citing Fulce, 993 S.W.2d at 662). Indeed, the court of criminal appeals
just last year discussed the 2003 amendments to article 42.12 and began its
analysis by stating, “At common law, a trial court’s jurisdiction over a motion to
revoke did not extend beyond the expiration of a defendant’s community
supervision unless the motion had been filed and a capias or arrest warrant
issued within the supervision period.” Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 22, 22–26
(Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (emphasis added) (discussing language of article 42.12,
7
section 24 and holding that statutory amendment “eliminated the common-law
due-diligence defense and replaced it with the limited affirmative defense
provided in the due-diligence statute”). Other courts, including this one, have
similarly and consistently referred to a trial court’s jurisdiction or lack thereof in
the context of attempts to modify, extend, or revoke community supervision after
the term’s expiration. See In re Cherry, 258 S.W.3d 328, 332, 334 (Tex. App.—
Austin 2008, orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g) (stating that absent motion to
revoke and issuance of capias, “a trial court has no jurisdiction to modify
community supervision after the supervision term has expired” and holding that
trial court “lacked jurisdiction to do anything further in this case other than to
discharge Cherry from probation”); In re Hancock, 212 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding) (holding order purporting to clarify
extension of community supervision was void because trial court “had no
jurisdiction over the case” after term expired since no motion to revoke filed
before expiration); Polak v. State, 907 S.W.2d 664, 664 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1995, no pet.) (vacating judgment and holding trial court lacked jurisdiction to
revoke probation and sentence Polak to confinement); see also Weeks v. State,
Nos. 13-11-00628-CR, 13-11-00629-CR, 2013 WL 485792, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi Feb. 7, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(op. on reh’g) (holding that because motion to revoke was filed and capias issued
before expiration of term, the trial “court thus retained jurisdiction to hear the
8
underlying felony theft case, despite the fact that [Weeks’s] community
supervision term expired”); Townsley v. State, No. 05-11-00921-CR, 2012 WL
6634679, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (“Generally, a trial court’s jurisdiction over a
defendant’s criminal charge expires once the defendant successfully completes
the period of deferred community supervision.” (citing article 42.12, § 5(c)));
Baldwin v. State, No. 07-12-00048-CR, 2012 WL 5456396, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Nov. 8, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(holding trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to adjudication after community
supervision term expired in absence of capias issued before expiration of term);
Reynolds v. State, No. 02-02-00088-CR, 2003 WL 21197442, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth May 22, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“A
trial court has jurisdiction to revoke community supervision after the term of
community supervision has expired if the State filed a motion to revoke before
expiration of the period and a capias or arrest warrant was issued before
expiration of the period.”).
In light of the plain language of article 42.12 and the cases holding that a
trial court loses jurisdiction to extend, modify, or revoke community supervision in
the absence of a motion and capias prior to expiration of the term of supervision,
we hold that the trial court did not have jurisdiction in December 2012 to extend
the term of Leonard’s community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
9
art. 42.12, §§ 5(h), 21(e); Cherry, 258 S.W.3d at 332; Hancock, 212 S.W.3d at
929. The estoppel doctrine advanced by the State therefore does not apply.
See Rhodes, 240 S.W.3d at 891. The trial court’s December 4, 2012 order is
void. See Hancock, 212 S.W.3d at 929.
IV. Conclusion
Because the trial court’s December 4, 2012 order is void, we conditionally
grant the petition for writ of mandamus. Our writ will not issue unless the trial
court refuses to vacate its December 4, 2012 order within ten days of the date of
this opinion.
ANNE GARDNER
JUSTICE
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.
DELIVERED: June 6, 2013
10