IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00061-CV
In the Interest of B.B., a Child,
From the County Court at Law
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. 45,718
memorandum opinion
We abated this parental-rights termination appeal for a hearing in the trial court on Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw, which was granted. Although Appellant failed to attend the hearing, the trial court found Appellant to be indigent and appointed new counsel for him.
In a letter dated June 30, 2009, the Clerk of the Court notified all parties that, unless within twenty-one (21) days Appellant notified the Court in a writing personally signed by Appellant that he wishes to proceed with this appeal, it would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Because Appellant has failed to so notify the Court, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed July 29, 2009
[CV06]
160;
OPINION ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
On original submission, we dismissed this case for want of jurisdiction because of our prior holding that Riewe v. State foreclosed the opportunity to amend a notice of appeal. Marbut v. State, 49 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet. h.) (citing Riewe v. State, 13 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Craddock v. State, 32 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, no pet.)). However, Marbut's Petition for Discretionary Review points out reasons why we should hear this appeal.
The record shows that she was indicted for “hindering secured creditors” in an amount of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, a state jail felony. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.33 (Vernon 1994). The initial indictment was filed on October 15, 1997. On the face of the indictment, the amounts are interlined and changed to $500 and $1,500, amounts charging a Class A misdemeanor. According to the clerk’s record, the “amended” indictment was filed on July 7, 1998. The order placing her on deferred adjudication probation, filed July 8, 1998, states that Marbut pled guilty to “THEFT $500.00 - $1,500.00 CLASS A,” and that the court finds the evidence substantiates that Marbut is guilty of “the offense of THEFT $500-$1,500.00 CLASS A.” On the other hand, the judgment adjudicating her guilt, dated February 2, 2001, finds her guilty of hindering secured creditors, $1,500.00 - $20,000.00, a felony. She was ordered to serve one year in the county jail. One year is the maximum sentence for a Class A misdemeanor. Also, a state jail felony is not served in the county jail; misdemeanors are.
A reduction in punishment for a state jail felony is allowed by section 12.44 of the Penal Code:
Reduction of State Jail Felony Punishment to Misdemeanor Punishment
(a) A court may punish a defendant who is convicted of a state jail felony by imposing the confinement permissible as punishment for a Class A misdemeanor if, after considering the gravity and circumstances of the felony committed and the history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant, the court finds that such punishment would best serve the ends of justice.
(b) When a court is authorized to impose punishment for a lesser category of offense as provided in Subsection (a), the court may authorize the prosecuting attorney to prosecute initially for the lesser category of offense.
Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.44 (Vernon Supp. 2001). Subsection “b” appears to control here, i.e., the felony indictment was interlined to prosecute Marbut for a misdemeanor. Interlining an indictment is an acceptable means by which to amend it. Riney v. State, 28 S.W.3d 561, 565-66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
Based on the documents, the charge against Marbut was reduced to a misdemeanor when the indictment was amended. She could only have pled to a misdemeanor and be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision on the basis of a misdemeanor. She was then adjudicated guilty and sentenced for a felony. The judgment is void because Marbut was convicted of a crime different from the one she pled guilty to. Ivory v. State, 632 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Bartley v. State, 789 S.W.2d 288, 290-92 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, pet. ref’d).
Therefore, we withdraw our opinion and judgment in Cause No. 10-01-090-CR, dated June 13, 2001. Tex. R. App. P. 50. We also withdraw the Opinion on Petition for Discretionary Review and judgment dated August 31, 2001, and substitute this opinion therefor. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause for a hearing on the misdemeanor adjudication. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). Marbut’s Petition for Discretionary Review is dismissed by operation of law. Tex. R. App. P. 50.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Gray
(Justice Gray dissents)
Opinion delivered and filed September 7, 2001
Publish