MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 6, 2013.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01208-CR
No. 05-12-01209-CR
No. 05-12-01210-CR
ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-51396-U, F12-51397-U, F12-51398-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Lewis
Opinion by Justice Murphy
Alton Lee Jewel Bryant appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery, unlawful
possession of a firearm by a felon (UPFF), and evading arrest. In a single point of error,
appellant contends the 291st district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases and render
judgments because the cases were not transferred to that court. We conclude the cases were
properly filed in the 291st district court after return of the indictments and affirm the judgments,
as modified to accurately reflect the pleas, the trial court’s findings, and the judgments. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.4.
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon,
UPFF, and evading arrest while using a vehicle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03(a),
38.04(a), (b)(2)(A), 46.04(a) (West 2011). Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement each
in the aggravated robbery and evading arrest cases. The trial court sentenced appellant to
imprisonment, as follows: thirty years for the aggravated robbery, ten years for the UPFF, and
twenty years for the evading arrest. The trial court also assessed a $2,000 fine in each case.
Appellant contends in his sole point of error that the 291st Judicial District Court lacked
jurisdiction over the cases because they were not transferred to the court’s docket. Specifically,
the indictments in the aggravated robbery and UPFF cases were returned in Criminal District
Court No. 5 and the indictment in the evading arrest case was returned in the 283rd Judicial
District Court. Appellant argues transfer orders were required before the 291st Judicial District
Court could hear the cases and render judgments.
A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires into “all offenses liable to
indictment” and hears testimony before voting on whether to indict an accused. TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.09, 20.19 (West 2005); Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1987). After the conclusion of testimony, the grand jury votes “as to the presentment
of an indictment.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.19. Following presentment, an
indictment is filed in a court with jurisdiction to hear the case. See Hultin v. State, 171 Tex.
Crim. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961).
In counties having two or more district courts, the judges of the courts may adopt rules
governing the filing, numbering, and assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the
-2-
courts’ work they consider necessary or desirable to conduct the business of the courts. See TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 24.304 (West 2004); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.093 (West Supp.
2010) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment,
docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases). Thus, a specific district court sitting in Dallas may
impanel a grand jury; yet all cases returned by that grand jury are not necessarily assigned to the
same court. See Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d).
Two grand juries returned indictments for appellant: Criminal District Court No. 5 and
the 283rd Judicial District Court. The cases were then filed in the 291st Judicial District Court.
The record does not indicate the cases were ever filed in or appeared on the trial dockets of
Criminal District Court No. 5 or the 283rd Judicial District Court. Because the 291st Judicial
District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s cases and render the judgments, we resolve
appellant’s sole point of error against him.
In reviewing the record, we observe the written judgments do not accurately reflect the
proceedings. Specifically, appellant pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph in the
aggravated robbery and evading arrest cases and the trial court found the enhancement
paragraphs true. Additionally, the trial court assessed a $2,000 fine in each case. Yet the
judgments in the aggravated robbery and evading arrest cases do not reflect those pleas or
findings. The judgments in the UPFF and evading arrest cases also do not include the $2,000
fine that was pronounced orally. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgments as follows:
(1) in cause no. 05-12-01208-CR, we modify the judgment to show the plea to the first
enhancement paragraph is true and the finding on the first enhancement paragraph is true; (2) in
cause no. 05-12-01209-CR, we modify the judgment to show the fine is $2,000; and (3) in cause
no. 05-12-01210-CR, we modify the judgment to show the plea to the first enhancement
-3-
paragraph is true, the finding on the first enhancement paragraph is true, and the fine is $2,000.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993);
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.─Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/Mary Murphy/
MARY MURPHY
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121208F.U05
-4-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, Appeal from the 291st Judicial
Appellant District Court of Dallas County, Texas
(Tr.Ct.No. F12-51396-U).
No. 05-12-01208-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Murphy, Justices FitzGerald and Lewis
THE STATE OF TEXAS, participating.
Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 1st Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered May 6, 2013.
/Mary Murphy/
MARY MURPHY
JUSTICE
-5-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, Appeal from the 291st Judicial
Appellant District Court of Dallas County, Texas
(Tr.Ct.No. F12-51397-U).
No. 05-12-01209-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Murphy, Justices FitzGerald and Lewis
THE STATE OF TEXAS, participating.
Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$2,000.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered May 6, 2013.
/Mary Murphy/
MARY MURPHY
JUSTICE
-6-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, Appeal from the 291st Judicial
Appellant District Court of Dallas County, Texas
(Tr.Ct.No. F12-51398-U).
No. 05-12-01210-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Murphy, Justices FitzGerald and Lewis
THE STATE OF TEXAS, participating.
Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 1st Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$2,000.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered May 6, 2013.
/Mary Murphy/
MARY MURPHY
JUSTICE
-7-
Alton Lee Jewel Bryant v. State
Combined Opinion