Christopher Nathan Fodor v. the State of Texas

DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 23, 2023
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00639-CR
CHRISTOPHER NATHAN FODOR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1624865-Q
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Kennedy
Opinion by Justice Goldstein
Christopher Nathan Fodor appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating his
guilt on a charge of aggravated assault and sentencing him to five years’
confinement. In a single issue, Fodor complains that his underlying plea of guilt was
not properly reviewed by the trial court following a hearing before a magistrate, and
his conviction is therefore void on its face.
In February 2017, Fodor was charged by indictment with aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. The record reflects that all of the following events occurred
on September 28, 2017: (1) Fodor signed a judicial confession to the offense as
alleged in the indictment; (2) entered a plea agreement (a) deferring adjudication of
his guilt, (b) placing him on community supervision for six years, and (c) waiving a
jury trial; and (3) waived the right to have his case heard by a district judge and
requested referral to a magistrate. The district judge referred the case to a magistrate
who issued findings, conclusions, and recommendations in conformity with the plea
bargain agreement. On the same page that the magistrate dated and signed the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations, the district judge signed a two-
paragraph order adopting the actions of the magistrate but did not separately date
that signature. The district judge signed an order deferring an adjudication of
Fodor’s guilt and placing him on community supervision for six years.
In May 2018, the State filed a motion to revoke probation or proceed with an
adjudication of guilt alleging Fodor had violated multiple conditions of his
community supervision. The State subsequently withdrew the motion to revoke, and
the trial court, in June 2018, entered an order continuing Fodor on probation. In
August 2020, the State again filed a motion to revoke, and Fodor was again
continued on probation by court order in January 2021. This process repeated itself
with the State filing a motion to revoke in April 2021 and the trial court continuing
Fodor on probation in May 2021.
Following another motion to revoke, Fodor entered an open plea of true to the
allegations in the State’s motion to revoke. On May 13, 2022, the trial court, based
upon a plea agreement on the motion to revoke or adjudicate, revoked Fodor’s
–2–
community supervision and entered judgment adjudicating Fodor’s guilt and
sentencing him to five years’ confinement. This appeal followed.
In a single issue, Fodor argues his underlying guilty plea was not properly
reviewed by the trial court following the hearing before the magistrate, rendering his
subsequent conviction void on its face. In making this argument, Fodor relies on the
fact that the signature of the district judge adopting the actions of the magistrate was
undated. Appellant asserts the lack of a date “means two things: the judge did not
properly note her review of the magistrate’s findings, and failing proper review, it
appears for the record that the magistrate, who was not a district judge, presided over
[Fodor]’s guilty plea.”
A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may
raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding, such as evidentiary sufficiency,
only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first
imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The
exception to this rule is that a defendant may challenge the original order at the time
his probation is revoked when the complaint, if sustained, would render the judgment
void. Deifik v. State, 58 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).
This is because a void judgment is subject to collateral attack at any time. Id.As this Court has previously held, the trial court’s failure to review and adopt
the magistrate judge’s actions before signing the order placing the defendant on
probation is not fundamental error that would render the judgment void. Christian
–3–
v. State, 865 S.W.2d 198, 201 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, pet ref’d). Here, the record
shows the district court judge did sign the order adopting the magistrate’s actions,
and the date of the order appears on the same page beside the magistrate’s signature.
Because appellant did not timely appeal from the original order placing him on
probation, and his challenge is not a permissible collateral attack on that order, we
have no jurisdiction over appellant’s complaint. Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at 662;
Christian, 865 S.W.2d at 201.
We therefore overrule Fodor’s issue and dismiss this appeal for want of
jurisdiction.
/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
220639F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER NATHAN On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
FODOR, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1624865-Q.
No. 05-22-00639-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Goldstein. Justices Carlyle and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Kennedy participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered March 23, 2023
–5–