Davis v. State, 01-16-00079-CR

• Decision Date: 06 April 2017
• Docket Number: NO. 01-16-00079-CR,01-16-00079-CR
• Parties: Frederick Anthony DAVIS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

519 S.W.3d 251

Frederick Anthony DAVIS, Appellant

v.The STATE of Texas, Appellee

NO. 01-16-00079-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Opinion issued April 6, 2017

Rehearing En Banc Overruled June 8, 2017

Discretionary Review Refused September 13, 2017

Ted Wood, Public Defender, Harris County, Texas, 1201 Franklin, 13^th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, Appellant.

Kim Ogg, District Attorney—Harris County, 1201 Franklin, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77002, Clint Morgan, Assistant District Attorney, Harris County, Texas, 1201 Franklin, Suite 600, Houston, TX 77002, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Huddle.

OPINION

Jane Bland, Justice

The State charged Frederick Anthony Davis with aggravated assault. He pleaded guilty to the charge and "true" to one enhancement paragraph without a recommendation as to punishment. After a hearing and a pre-sentencing investigation (PSI), the trial court assessed Davis's punishment at 17 years' confinement. On appeal, Davis contends that (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case because the grand jury that indicted him sat in a different Harris County District Court than the one in which his case was heard; (2) the 17-year sentence is outside the statutory range because his earlier juvenile adjudication cannot apply to enhance his sentence; and (3) the statutory clerk's fee assessed as a court cost is, on its face, an unconstitutional tax. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear Davis's case, applied the appropriate sentencing range, and did not err in assessing the fee. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

This case involves the transfer of a grand jury indictment from one Harris County District Court to another Harris County District Court in which an earlier complaint involving the same offense was pending. The indictment in this case, identified as cause number 1305212, was filed against Davis in the 184th District Court. The indictment was signed by the "178th Foreman of the Grand Jury" and indicts Frederick Anthony Davis for causing serious bodily injury while evading arrest. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a) (West 2013) ("A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.").

The 184th District Court was the court in which the State had filed an earlier complaint concerning the same conduct, in cause number 1304960. In the caption, the indictment reflects that the indictment was a "refile" of a "related case [ ]," cause number "1304960/ 184." When the indictment was filed, the State moved to dismiss the earlier cause number, 1304960, notating that the "case [was] refiled as cause no. 1305212."

The trial court proceedings were conducted in the 184th District Court. After Davis pleaded guilty to the charged offense and true to the enhancement paragraph, the trial court requested a PSI report and reconvened for the punishment phase. The State proffered the PSI report, which the trial court admitted into evidence. That report reflects that, in the prior juvenile delinquency adjudication alleged to enhance his evading arrest offense, Davis initially received 12 months' probation. When Davis failed to comply with the terms of his probation, the juvenile court revoked it and committed Davis to a juvenile detention facility.¹

The trial court in this case assessed Davis's punishment at 17 years' confinement and a $40 fee for the services of the clerk of the court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.005(a) (West 2005) ("A defendant convicted of an offense in a county court, a county court at law, or a district court shall pay for the services of the clerk of the court a fee of $40.").

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Davis first challenges the jurisdiction of the 184th District Court, contending that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over Davis because a grand jury from the 178th District Court presented the indictment, requiring that the case be returned to the 178th District Court.

The State argues that a plea to the jurisdiction may not be raised for the first time on appeal, citing to several older Court of Criminal Appeals cases as well as to Blades v. State , Garcia v. State , and Mills v. State . See Blades v. State , 03-14-00634-CR, 2015 WL 4914798, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 12, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Garcia v. State , 901 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) ; Mills v. State , 742 S.W.2d 831 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.).

However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has more recently held that jurisdiction may be challenged for the first time on appeal. See Cook v. State , 902 S.W.2d 471, 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (jurisdiction defects in indictment may be raised for the first time on appeal). Additionally, Blades , Garcia , and Mills are distinguishable because their holdings apply to jurisdictional challenges based on article 4.16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 4.12, 4.16 (West 1966) (providing that when two or more courts have jurisdiction, the court in which the indictment was first filed has jurisdiction except in the case of misdemeanors); Blades , 2015 WL 4914798 at *3 (jurisdictional challenge based on article 4.16 to lack of transfer could be waived since the absence of a transfer order is at most a procedural issue); Garcia , 901 S.W.2d at 732 (interpreting challenge based on article 4.16 as a challenge to lack of transfer order which could be waived); Mills , 742 S.W.2d at 835 (article 4.16 does not elevate requirement of valid transfer order from a procedural issue to a jurisdictional one). Davis does not base his jurisdictional complaint on article 4.16. Thus, he may raise it for the first time on appeal, and we consider the merits of Davis's jurisdictional challenge.

A district court forms and impanels a grand jury and empowers it to inquire into indictable offenses, including aggravated assault. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.09 (West 2005) ("The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person."); Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). After hearing testimony, a grand jury votes concerning the presentment of an indictment. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.19 (West 2005) ("After all the testimony which is accessible to the grand jury shall have been given in respect to any criminal accusation, the vote shall be taken as to the presentment of an indictment...."); Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d at 448. After presentment, the State files the indictment in a court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Bourque v. State , 156 S.W.3d 675, 677 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref'd) ; Cook v. State , 902 S.W.2d 471, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). All state district courts within the same county have jurisdiction over the same cases. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.094 (West 1999).

In this case, an amended indictment, adding the allegation that the peace officer suffered serious bodily injury during the commission of the crime, was "refile[d]" in the 184th District Court, though it was signed by the 178th District Court's grand jury foreman before being returned to the 184th District Court.

The 184th District Court had the first-filed related case. Thus, the indictment's return to the 184th District Court conferred jurisdiction over the indictment, because both the 184th District Court and the 178th District Court are district courts constituted in Harris County. As a result, we conclude that the record fails to demonstrate a jurisdictional defect.

A. District courts within the same county may exchange benches.

The Texas Constitution provides that "District Judges may exchange districts, or hold court for each other when they may deem it expedient, and shall do so when required by law." See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 11. The Government Code accomplishes this constitutional directive by placing the authority to exchange benches with the district judges in a given county:

In a county having two or more district courts, the district judges may adopt rules governing the filing and numbering of cases, the assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the work of the courts as in their discretion they consider necessary or desirable for the orderly dispatch of the business of the courts.

See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.024 (West 2012) ; see also TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.093 (West 2015) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of cases). Accordingly, subject to local rules of administration, any district court in a county may "transfer a case to another district court" in the county, "hear and determine any case or proceeding pending in another district court in the county without having the case transferred," "sit for another district court in the county and hear and determine any case or proceeding pending in that court," or "temporarily exchange benches with the judge of another district court in the county," among other powers of transfer or exchange of cases. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.003 (West 2013).

B. District courts within the same county may exchange benches for preliminary proceedings.

Davis acknowledges the constitutional provision and the statute implementing it, but contends that these provisions authorize a transfer of the case only after the grand jury returns the indictment to the originating court. These sources of transfer authority, however, impose no such limitation: the discretionary power they confer permits the local judiciary intra-county flexibility in exchanging benches throughout the proceedings in a case—including its preliminary proceedings. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.094 ("[A] district or statutory county court judge may hear and determine a matter...