Boutte v. State, 01-90-00940-CR

Decision Date06 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. 01-90-00940-CR,01-90-00940-CR
CitationBoutte v. State, 824 S.W.2d 322 (Tex. App. 1992)
PartiesEthon Dwight BOUTTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. (1st Dist.)
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Douglas M. O'Brien, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., J. Harvey Hudson and Kim Ogg, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

Before DUNN, DUGGAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.

OPINION

DUGGAN, Justice.

A jury found appellant guilty of the felony offense of aggravated robbery. Appellant pled true to the amended enhancement paragraph, and the jury assessed his punishment at 30-years confinement.

In a single point of error, appellant asserts that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court erred in permitting the State, over his objection, to amend the indictment after trial began. We agree, and reverse and remand for a new trial on punishment only.

In the original indictment, the enhancement paragraph alleged that appellant had been previously convicted of aggravated robbery. At the commencement of the punishment phase of trial, appellant pled not true to the enhancement paragraph. Then, over appellant's timely objection, the trial court granted the State's motion to amend the enhancement paragraph by deleting the word "aggravated" from "aggravated robbery." When the trial court overruled his objection and allowed the State's amendment, appellant changed his plea and pled true to the amended enhancement paragraph.

Article 28.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 1 governs the amendment of indictments. Section (b) of article 28.10 allows amendment of the indictment "after the trial on the merits commences if the defendant does not object." (Emphasis added.) The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently held in Hillin v. State, 808 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), that "[t]he language and wording of Article 28.10(b) is clear and unambiguous, and if the defendant, after trial on the merits has commenced, interposes a timely objection to the State's proposed amendment, be it to form or substance, such amendment is absolutely prohibited." Id. at 488. Stated conversely, "a defendant under the clear language of Section (b) has an absolute veto power over proposed amendment after trial on the merits has commenced." Id. at 489. Further, the "substantial rights" analysis allowed under article 28.10(c) does not apply to amendments to an indictment made after the trial commences. Id. at 488.

The State could not have relied on the distinction that the prohibited amendment in Hillin changed the allegation of manner and means of commission of the offense in a primary count, while the amendment in our case merely changed the name of the offense in an enhancement paragraph. In Sodipo v. State, 815 S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), the Court of Criminal Appeals found reversible error when the trial court granted the State's motion, over timely objection, to amend the indictment on trial day prior to commencing trial by changing the cause numbers in the enhancement paragraph. The court also held in Sodipo that the provisions of article 28.10 are not subject to harmless error analysis under TEX.R.APP.P. 81(b)(2). Id. at 554-5.

The State argues that deleting the word "aggravated" from the enhancement paragraph was not an amendment to the indictment but the abandonment of an aggravating element of the charged offense, and "an announcement of the State's decision to try appellant for the lesser included offense." As authority, the State relies on two court of appeal decisions decided before--and contrary to--Hillin and Sodipo: Avalos v. State, 764 S.W.2d 910, 912 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.), and Stockton v. State, 756 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Tex.App.--Austin 1988, no pet.).

The trial court failed to comply with the provisions of article 28.10(...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • James v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 12, 2012
    ...phase of a trial is likewise subject to the defendant's absolute veto under Article 28.10(b). See Boutte v. State, 824 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet ref'd). Under Boutte, when the trial court erroneously permits the State to amend an enhancement paragraph in the in......
  • White v. State, B14-92-00689-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 1994
    ...(Tex.Crim.App.1991) (State attempted to make a trial amendment after trial on the merits had commenced); Boutte v. State, 824 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd) (Attempted deletion of the word "aggravated" in an enhancement paragraph during the punishment phase of t......
  • James v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 19, 2012
    ...phase of a trial is likewise subject to the defendant's absolute veto under Article 28.10(b). See Boutte v. State, 824 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet ref'd). Under Boutte, when the trial court erroneously permits the State to amend an enhancement paragraph in the i......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 2020
    ...[1st Dist.] 2012, pet. ref'd) (explaining that this Court was required to follow its precedent in Boutte v. State, 824 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet ref'd), applying article 28.10(b) to amendment of enhancement paragraph in indictment and recognizing that other co......
  • Get Started for Free