Quentin Leon Murray v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • AFFIRMED as Modified; Opinion Filed April 30, 2014.
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-13-00954-CR
    QUENTIN LEON MURRAY, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
    Dallas County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. F12-24209-U
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald
    Opinion by Justice Moseley
    Quentin Leon Murray appeals his conviction for aggravated assault involving serious
    bodily injury/family violence. The trial court also made an affirmative finding that appellant
    used or exhibited a deadly weapon, not a firearm. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced
    by one prior felony conviction, at thirty years’ imprisonment. In a single issue, appellant
    contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and render judgment. We modify the
    trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.
    In his sole issue, appellant contends the 291st Judicial District Court lacked jurisdiction over
    the case because it was not properly transferred to the court’s docket. Appellant contends that
    because the indictment was returned in the Criminal District Court No. 5, and the record contains no
    order transferring the case to the 291st Judicial District Court where the case was heard and the
    judgment was rendered, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case. The State responds the
    291st Judicial District Court always had jurisdiction over the case and no transfer order was
    necessary.
    A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires into offenses liable to
    indictment and hears testimony before voting on whether to induct 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 court 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 2013)
    (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 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).
    While the record shows the grand jury that returned the indictment was presided over by the
    Criminal District Court No. 5, the case was thereafter filed in the 291st Judicial District Court. We
    take judicial notice that both of these courts are located in Dallas County. Nothing in the record
    shows the case was ever filed or appeared on the trial docket of Criminal District Court No. 5.
    -2-
    Because the 291st Judicial District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s case and render the
    judgment, we resolve appellant’s sole issue against him.
    We note the judgment reflects a plea of true and a finding of true to a second
    enhancement paragraph. The record, however, shows the State alleged only one prior conviction
    for enhancement purposes. Appellant pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph and the trial
    court found one enhancement paragraph true. Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We modify the
    judgment to show there was no plea or finding on a second enhancement paragraph. 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 judgment.
    / Jim Moseley
    JIM MOSELEY
    JUSTICE
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47
    130954F.U05
    -3-
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    QUENTIN LEON MURRAY, Appellant                      Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
    Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
    No. 05-13-00954-CR          V.                      F12-24209-U).
    Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley,
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                        Justices O’Neill and FitzGerald
    participating.
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
    follows:
    The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show
    “N/A.”
    The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to
    show “N/A.”
    As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
    Judgment entered April 30, 2014.
    /Jim Moseley
    JIM MOSELEY
    JUSTICE
    -4-
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-13-00954-CR

Filed Date: 4/30/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015