John Peter Pullis v. State ( 2014 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00135-CR
JOHN PETER PULLIS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-1881-C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John Peter Pullis appeals from a conviction for the felony offense of violation of a
protective order with two prior convictions. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 25.07(g)(1)
(West 2011). In his sole issue, Pullis complains that the trial court abused its discretion
by denying his motion to quash the indictment because the trial court did not have
jurisdiction due to the lack of finality of one of the prior convictions. Because we find
no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Procedural History
Pullis was indicted in October of 2012 for violating a protective order, which was
alleged to have occurred on August 8, 2012. Pullis had pled guilty pursuant to a plea
bargain after a jury had found him guilty of violating a protective order on August 7,
2012. That same day Pullis was sentenced for that offense and waived his right to
appeal that conviction. The trial court also signed a certificate of right to appeal on
August 7, 2012, which indicated that Pullis had no right to appeal that conviction.
On August 27, 2012, Pullis filed a notice of appeal of the August 7, 2012
conviction with this Court. See, generally, Pullis v. State, No. 10-13-00099-CR, 2013 Tex.
App. LEXIS 7319 (Tex. App.—Waco June 13, 2012). That appeal was ultimately
dismissed by this Court. Id.
Pullis filed a motion to quash the indictment arguing that the trial court did not
have jurisdiction over the August 8, 2012 offense because of the lack of finality of the
August 7, 2012 offense. The trial court denied the motion to quash, and Pullis pled
guilty to violation of a protective order. The trial court granted Pullis the right to
appeal the jurisdictional issue.
Jurisdiction of the Trial Court
Pullis's sole issue is: "The trial court erred by failing to rule that it lacked
jurisdiction over the case at bar because one of the prior convictions necessary for the
trial court to obtain jurisdiction was on appeal and not a final conviction."
Pullis v. State Page 2
The presentment of an indictment vests a district court with jurisdiction. TEX.
CONST. Art. V, § 12(b). District courts and criminal district courts have original
jurisdiction in criminal cases of the grade of felony, of all misdemeanors involving
official misconduct, and of misdemeanor cases transferred to the district court under
Article 4.17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.05
(West 2005). In addition, the 19th District Court of McLennan County has concurrent
jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses with the county court and statutory county
courts of McLennan County. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.120(b-1) (West 2004).
Violation of a protective order without the prior convictions is a class A misdemeanor.
See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 25.07(g). Because the 19th District court has concurrent
jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction
over the offense even if it was not a felony offense.
Motion to Quash the Indictment
In his brief to this Court, Pullis additionally complains in his sole issue that the
trial court erroneously denied his motion to quash the indictment. Pullis argues that
the trial court should have granted his motion because the appeal of the August 7, 2012
conviction was still pending when he was indicted for the August 8, 2012 offense. We
review the sufficiency of an indictment de novo. Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912, 915
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007); State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
Pullis v. State Page 3
An indictment must state facts which, if proved, show a violation of the law; the
indictment must be dismissed if such facts would not constitute a criminal offense.
Posey v. State, 545 S.W.2d 162, 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). When the face of the
indictment charges a felony, the district court does not lose jurisdiction if the State is
only able to prove a misdemeanor at trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.06;
Jones v. State, 502 S.W.2d 771, 773-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); State v. Meadows, 170
S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.).
A charging instrument that is valid on its face and returned by a legally
constituted grand jury is sufficient to mandate trial of the charge on its merits.
Meadows, 170 S.W.3d at 620. The sufficiency of an indictment cannot be supported or
defeated by evidence at a pretrial hearing. State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934, 948 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1994) (dissenting op. adopted on reh'g); Meadows, 170 S.W.3d at 620. An
indictment must be facially tested under the law as a pleading. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d
at 948. In the pretrial setting, there is neither constitutional nor statutory authority for a
defendant to test, or for a trial court to determine, the sufficiency of evidence to support
or defeat an element alleged in the indictment. Woods v. State, 153 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005); Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d at 948; Meadows, 170 S.W.3d at 620.
A motion to quash, like any pretrial motion, cannot be used to argue that the
prosecution is unable to prove one of the elements of the crime. Lawrence v. State, 240
S.W.3d 912, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Woods, 153 S.W.3d at 415. A pretrial proceeding
Pullis v. State Page 4
should not be a "mini-trial" on the sufficiency of the evidence to support an element of
the offense. Lawrence, 240 S.W.3d at 916. The trial court did not err by denying Pullis's
motion to quash the indictment.1 We overrule Pullis's sole issue and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Conclusion
Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 2, 2014
Do not publish
[CR25]
1 Pullis does not complain of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the August 7, 2012 conviction.
Pullis v. State Page 5