Joey Marquel Hines v. State ( 2017 )

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed December 11, 2017.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00416-CR
JOEY MARQUEL HINES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-60278-I
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
Joey Marquel Hines pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon and true to the enhancement paragraph alleged in the indictment. Following the terms of
Hines’s plea agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudicating Hines’s guilt, and
placed him on community supervision for five years. One of the conditions of Hines’s
community supervision was that he commit no offense against the laws of Texas, any other state,
or the United States.
The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging Hines violated several conditions of
his community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, the State focused solely
on the allegation that, during the period of community supervision, Hines committed, and was
convicted of, the offense of burglary of a building in Robertson County. The trial court found
the allegation that Hines committed an offense against the laws of the State of Texas was true,
adjudicated him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced him to ten
years’ imprisonment.
In one issue, Hines contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and render
a judgment because there was no written order transferring the case to its docket. Hines
specifically argues the indictment in this case was originally presented to the 291st Judicial
District Court of Dallas County; subsequently, the case appeared on the docket of Criminal
District Court No. 2, where it remained through the entry of judgment. No transfer order appears
in the record. Therefore, Hines asserts the 291st Judicial District Court retained jurisdiction, and
Criminal District Court No. 2 never acquired jurisdiction over this case.
Texas courts have concluded the absence of a transfer order from the record is a
procedural error rather than a jurisdictional error. Mills v. State, 742 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Tex.
App.—Dallas, 1987, no pet.); Lemasurier v. State, 91 S.W.3d 897, 899–900 (Tex. App.—Ft.
Worth 2002, pet. ref’d).1 Hines failed to file a formal plea to the jurisdiction with the trial court.
Therefore, he failed to preserve this complaint for appeal. See Mills, 742 S.W.2d at 835;
Lemasurier, 91 S.W.3d at 899–900.2
Even if Hines had preserved this complaint for appeal, we conclude his argument lacks
merit. A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires “into all offenses liable to
indictment,” and hears all the testimony available before voting on whether to indict an accused.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 20.09, 20.19 (West 2015). Because the court “exercises some
‘supervisory power over the grand jury,’” the grand jury is “often characterized as an arm of the
court by which it is appointed rather than an autonomous entity.” Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d
675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (quoting Dallas Cnty. Dist. Attorney v. Doe, 969
1
See also Jamison v. State, No. 05-15-00086-CR, 2016 WL 1725489, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 27, 2016, per. ref’d) (mem. op., not
designated for publication).
2
See also Jamison, 2016 WL 1725489, at *1.
–2–
S.W.2d 537, 542 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.)). After the conclusion of testimony, a grand
jury votes “as to the presentment of an indictment.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.19;
Allen v. State, No. 01-16-00768-CR, 2017 WL 5712602, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Nov. 28, 2017, no pet. h.). Following presentment, an indictment is filed in a court with
jurisdiction to hear the case. See Bourque, 156 S.W.3d at 678 (citing Hultin v. State, 171 Tex.
Crim. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961)). District judges in counties having two or more district
courts “may adopt rules governing the filing and numbering of cases, the assignment of cases for
trial, and the distribution of the work of the courts as in their discretion they consider necessary
or desirable for the orderly dispatch of the business of the courts.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §
24.024 (West Supp. 2017); see also id. § 74.093 (West Supp. 2017) (addressing adoption of local
rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of
cases). Thus, a specific district court may impanel a grand jury, but it does not necessarily
follow that all cases returned by that grand jury are assigned to the impaneling court. Bourque,
156 S.W.3d at 678; Allen, 2017 WL 5712602, at *3.
While the record shows the 291st Judicial District Court presided over the grand jury that
returned the indictment, the case was thereafter filed in Criminal District Court No. 2. We take
judicial notice that both of these courts are located in Dallas County. Nothing in the record
indicates the case was ever filed in or appeared on the trial docket of the 291st Judicial District
Court. Because Criminal District Court No. 2 had jurisdiction to hear Hines’s case and render
the judgment, we resolve Hines’s issue against him.
–3–
We affirm the trial court’s judgment
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
170416F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JOEY MARQUEL HINES, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 2, Dallas County, Texas,
No. 05-17-00416-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F14-60278-I.
Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Lang and Myers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 11th day of December, 2017.
–5–