DISSENTING OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
CLINTON, Judge,dissenting.
Appellant was charged by information with having committed the offense of criminally negligent homicide. He filed a pre-trial application for habeas corpus contending that a previous acquittal of this offense barred further prosecution. The trial court denied relief, but the court of appeals reversed, ordering that appellant be discharged. Ex parte George, 874 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1994). The State’s petition was granted to determine whether a judgment of acquittal entered after the trial court improperly denies the State the right to a jury trial bars further prosecution of the same offense. Tex.R.App.Pro., Rule 200(e)(2).
Stipulated facts show that an information alleging the same offense was called for trial and appellant entered a plea of not guilty,1 *528tendering a waiver of jury. The prosecutor declined to sign this waiver and requested a jury. The trial court denied that request, as well as ensuing motions for a continuance and to dismiss the information. The trial court then called on the State to present its evidence, and when the State refused, found appellant not guilty. The trial court entered a judgment of acquittal. The State subsequently filed a new information alleging the identical offense.
The court of appeals held that the trial court possessed jurisdiction over the cause and had entered a judgment of acquittal. Therefore, a retrial was barred even though the trial court acted in violation of Article 1.13, V.A.C.C.P., in proceeding to trial without a jury when the State had not agreed to waive a jury.
Article I, § 14 of the Texas Constitution states:
“No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty, nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offense, after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.” 2
Similarly, Article 1.11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
“An acquittal of the defendant exempts him from a second trial or a second prosecution for the same offense, however irregular the proceedings may have been; but if the defendant shall have been acquitted upon trial in a comí having no jurisdiction of the offense, he may be prosecuted again in a court having jurisdiction.”
The issue presented in this cause, therefore, is whether a trial court has jurisdiction to proceed to trial without a jury after the State refuses to agree to waive a jury.
The judgment of acquittal relied upon by appellant in this cause was entered in County Criminal Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County. A county court has original jurisdiction of all misdemeanors of which original jurisdiction is not given to the justice court. Article 4.07, V.A.C.C.P.; Article V, § 16, Tex. Const. A county criminal court at law in Harris County has the criminal jurisdiction provided by law for county courts. V.T.C.A. Gov’t Code, § 25.1033(a). Justice courts have jurisdiction in criminal cases where the fine to be imposed by law may not exceed two hundred dollars. Article 4.11, V.A.C.C.P. An information alleging appellant committed the offense of criminally negligent homicide was filed in Harris County on February 17, 1993. Criminally negligent homicide at the time this offense was committed was a Class A misdemeanor, with a permissible fine not to exceed $2,000. V.T.C.A. Penal Code, §§ 19.07 & 12.21(1). Accordingly, at the time appellant entered his plea on February 21,1993, the trial court had jurisdiction over the offense he allegedly committed.
It is true that the State is entitled to a writ of mandamus to require a trial court to empanel a jury if the State does not consent to waive a jury and no judgment has yet been entered in the cause. State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Tex.Civ.App.1992); State ex rel Turner v. McDonald, 676 S.W.2d 371 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). However, we have also held that the State’s consent to waiver of the jury is not jurisdictional. State ex rel. Bryan v. McDonald, 681 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). Once the trial court has entered a judgment and lost jurisdiction to grant a new trial, it cannot be ordered to set aside that judgment. Id.
The State argues that even though the court had jurisdiction over the case the trial judge had no discretion to act as factfinder, that no jeopardy attached, and that the State had no opportunity to seek a writ of mandamus because the trial court would not grant a continuance. However, these arguments do not address the plain language of Article 1.11, V.A.C.C.P., and Article I, § 14 of the Texas Constitution. That the trial court may have erroneously proceeded to trial as fact-finder did not divest it of jurisdiction over the cause. State ex rel. Bryan v. McDonald, *529supra.3 In a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the defendant enters his plea to the indictment. State v. Torres, 805 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).4 Once jeopardy attached, and the State declined to present evidence to satisfy its burden of proof, the trial court properly rendered a judgment of acquittal. That the trial court abused its discretion in acting as factfinder would certainly render the proceedings “irregular.” But we have already held that such an irregularity does not operate to void a judgment of conviction. State ex rel. Bryan v. McDonald, supra. I cannot imagine why it would void an otherwise valid judgment of acquittal. By its plain terms, Article 1.11 “exempts [applicant] from a second trial or a second prosecution for the same offense[.]” So does Article I, § 14.
Without expressly acknowledging it, what the Court really does today is to overrule a unanimous opinion of the Court that has been on the books for more than ten years, viz: State ex rel. Bryan v. McDonald, supra. But the State does not even cite this opinion, much less advocate its demise. Instead of summarily overruling it, the Court should be relying on Bryan to affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in this cause. Because the Court does not, I dissent.
BAIRD, OVERSTREET and MALONEY, JJ., join.. The court of appeals derived its recitation of the facts from a stipulation entered into by appellant and the State. See Ex parte George, supra, at 917, n. 1. In its recitation the court of appeals asserted that appellant "pled 'not guilty’ ...” Id., at 917. The State does not contest the court of appeals’ assertion that appellant entered a not *528guilty plea; we must take the case in the posture in which it comes before us. Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944, at 947, n. 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).
. All emphasis supplied.
. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the State could not have presented its evidence while simultaneously seeking an extraordinary writ to vindicate its statutory veto over bench trials. Having instead chosen not to present any evidence, the State was barred from further prosecution of this offense once the trial court rendered the judgment of acquittal.
. In Torres this Court refused to follow the Fifth Amendment lead and declare that under Article I, § 14 jeopardy attaches in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn. Instead we adhered to long-standing decisional law from this Court holding that jeopardy attaches under our state jeopardy provision when the accused pleads to the indictment, thus joining issue. It is true that in restating the well settled rule, Torres declared that jeopardy attaches in a bench trial "when both sides have announced ready and the defendant has pled to the charging instrument.” Id., at 421. Any requirement that the parties announce ready, however, was not contained in the cases that Torres relied upon. Moreover, as the court of appeals noted in its opinion below, even the State concedes that, other than the now-defunct Speedy Trial Act, there is no statutory requirement that the parties announce ready, or that the trial court seek such announcements as a prerequisite to proceeding to trial. Ex parte George, supra, at 918. Notwithstanding the gratuitously expansive language in Torres, I do not regard the State’s failure to announce ready in this cause as sufficient to forestall the attachment of jeopardy under Article I, § 14.