James Earl Miles v. State

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 3, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00125-CR JAMES EARL MILES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F09-33695-L MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang-Miers Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers James Earl Miles appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and render judgment. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. The background of the cases and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the cases is well settled. Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a knife and a bottle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (West 2011). The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on five years’ community supervision, and assessed a $1,500 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment. In his sole issue, appellant contends the Criminal District Court No. 5 lacked jurisdiction over the case because it was not properly transferred to the court’s docket. The indictment was returned in the 195th Judicial District Court. However, the record contains no order transferring the case to the Criminal District Court No. 5, where the case was heard and the judgment was rendered. A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires into offenses liable to indictment and hears testimony before voting on whether to indict an accused. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 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 competent jurisdiction, i.e., 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 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. 2012) (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 may impanel a grand -2- jury, but it does not necessarily follow that all cases returned by that grand jury are assigned to that court. See Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d). Here, while the record shows the grand jury that returned the indictment was presided over by the 195th Judicial District Court, the case was thereafter filed in the Criminal District Court No. 5. 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 195th Judicial District Court. Because the Criminal District Court No. 5 had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s case and render the judgment, we resolve appellant’s sole issue against him. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 130125F.U05 -3- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT JAMES EARL MILES, Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-13-00125-CR V. F09-33695-L). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and Bridges participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered May 3, 2013. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE -4-