Vega Jr., Rolando ( 2007 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

NO. PD-1399-06

---

ROLANDO VEGA, JR., Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

---

ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN PATRICIO COUNTY

---

Per curiam.



O P I N I O N

Appellant was charged with evading arrest in district court. He pleaded guilty and was convicted. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court lacked felony jurisdiction over the case because the indictment charged Appellant with a misdemeanor. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Appellant waived any error in the indictment by his failure to object. Vega v. State, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi, No. 13-05-00133-CR, delivered July 27, 2006).

Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review contending that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis because, since the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the judgment is void and may be attacked at any time. We recently addressed a similar issue in Teal v. State, S.W.3d (Tex. Crim. App. No. 689-06, delivered March 7, 2007). In Teal, we noted that defects in an indictment are waived if not objected to before trial, but the indictment must at the very least allege that a person committed an offense in order to vest a trial court with jurisdiction. We concluded that the indictment in that case was sufficient to vest the trial court with felony jurisdiction because, although it omitted one of the elements required to elevate the offense to a felony, it contained the other element, and "the district court could conclude, from the face of the charging instrument, that the State intended to charge a felony."   

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Teal. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of our opinion in Teal.

DATE DELIVERED: April 25, 2007

DO NOT PUBLISH