Ramirez v. State, 1464-01.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 1464-01.,1464-01. |
| Citation | 105 S.W.3d 628 |
| Parties | Leticia Mariaca RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Sten M. Langsjoen, Tyler, for appellant.
Jeffrey L. Van Horn, First Assist. St. Att., Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for state.
The appellant was charged by complaint and information with misdemeanor theft. A jury found the appellant guilty and assessed her punishment at 180 days confinement, probated for two years, and a fine of $2000. The Twelfth Court of Appeals later reversed the conviction, holding that the correction of the appellant's name in the complaint vitiated the complaint, thereby rendering invalid the information based upon said complaint and divesting the trial court of jurisdiction. Ramirez v. State, No. 12-00-00220-CR (Tex.App.-Tyler June 20, 2001) (). We disagree.
We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine whether an amendment to a complaint that underlies an information will operate to vitiate the complaint and divest the trial court of jurisdiction.1
In December of 1999, the appellant was arrested outside a Tyler grocery store and was accused of removing groceries from the store without paying. The appellant was charged by complaint and information with misdemeanor theft under the name Leticia Martinez Ramirez. The appellant appeared at the arraignment and her attorney advised the trial court that the name the appellant was charged under was in error. The appellant testified that she was Leticia Mariaca Ramirez, not Leticia Martinez Ramirez.
The State moved to amend the complaint and the information, and the appellant objected. The appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the fact that her name was incorrectly set out. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss stating that, since the first and last name were correct, it would allow the State to amend. The State amended the complaint, and the case proceeded to trial.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of theft. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause to the trial court with instructions to enter an order granting the appellant's motion to dismiss. Ibid.
Before 1985, this Court held that invalid complaints and informations constitute fundamental jurisdictional error, which may be raised for the first time on appeal. Davis v. State, 503 S.W.2d 241, 241 (Tex. Crim.App.1974); Thomas v. State, 474 S.W.2d 236, 236-37 (Tex.Crim.App.1971). Thus, under these holdings, an invalid complaint necessitated the reversal of a conviction because of a lack of trial court jurisdiction over the defendant's person. Aguilar v. State, 846 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Tex. Crim.App.1993).
As amended in 1985, Article 5, section 12(b) of the Texas Constitution provides, in part, that the presentment of an indictment or information vests the trial court with jurisdiction of the cause. Tex. Const. art. V, § 12(b). However, this constitutional provision does not apply to complaints. Huynh v. State, 901 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).
Now, under the explicit terms of the Constitution itself, the mere presentment of an information to a trial court invests that court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, regardless of any defect that might exist in the underlying complaint. Aguilar, 846 S.W.2d at 320. Defects in complaints are no longer jurisdictional in the traditional sense. Ibid.
In this case, the appellant informed the trial court that the name in the complaint and information were incorrect. The appellant then filed a motion to dismiss only the complaint. The trial court overruled the motion and allowed the State to amend the complaint.
The State argues that under Aguilar, the amendment of a complaint no longer vitiates both the complaint and the information, thereby destroying the trial court's jurisdiction. The State's analysis is correct.
In Aguilar, one of the issues was whether a defendant can object to an information for the first time on appeal on the grounds that a conviction was based upon a defective complaint. Aguilar v. State, 846 S.W.2d 318, 318 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). This Court held that the mere presentment of an information to a trial court invests that court with jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Do v. State
...form or substance, must be raised before trial in a motion to set aside the information or else they are waived. Ramirez v. State , 105 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (defect in information (citing Aguilar , 846 S.W.2d at 318, 320 )); Aguilar , 846 S.W.2d at 320 (defect in complaint......
-
Thompson v. State
...any defect in the indictment has been waived. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.14(b); Jenkins, 592 S.W.3d at 902; Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 273 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). We overrule Thompson's fourth issue.Charge error In hi......
-
Ortega v. State
...error, or irregularity, and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postconviction proceeding." Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). Appellant does not point out where in the record she timely objected to the alleged defect, and our own independent rev......
-
Mendiola v. State, No. 13-04-306-CR (TX 10/27/2005)
...error, or irregularity, and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other postconviction proceeding. Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). Therefore, appellant has waived this argument, i......
-
Pretrial Motions
...Crim. App. 1995). Similarly, the defendant must object to a misdemeanor complaint before trial or the issue is waived. Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 12-39 P RETRIAL M OTIONS §12:93 A defendant must raise a claim that the indictment is defective on the grounds that......
-
Charging Instruments
...to the Code of Criminal Procedure article 27.03; they are no longer jurisdictio nal in the traditional sense.” [ Ramirez v. State , 105 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. Crim.App. 2003) (citing Aguilar v. State , 846 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)).] Thus, error has been waived because of a failu......
-
Table of Cases
...(Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1984), §20:90 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), §§2:21.1, 2:24 Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), §12:93.2 Ramirez v. State, 184 S.W.3d 392 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2006, no pet .), §20:96.10 Ramirez v. State, 802 S.W.2d......
-
Pretrial Motions
...Pඋൾඍඋංൺඅ Mඈඍංඈඇඌ § Similarly, the defendant must object to a misdemeanor complaint before trial or the issue is waived. Ramirez v. State, 105 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). A defendant must raise a claim that the indictment is defective on the grounds that it alleges the manner and mean......