Watson v. State

Full title: Ralph James Watson, Appellant v. State of Texas, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland

Date published: Aug 7, 2003

No. 11-02-00095-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 7, 2003)

Opinion

No. 11-02-00095-CR

August 7, 2003. Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Appeal from Dallas County.

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCloud, S.J.¹

1 Austin McCloud, Retired Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland sitting by assignment.

Opinion

AUSTIN McCLOUD, SENIOR JUSTICE.

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court assessed Ralph James Watson's punishment at imprisonment for five years. Appellant appeals. We affirm. In a single point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment because appellant's case was not properly transferred to the court that revoked his community supervision. We disagree. Appellant was originally indicted on March 16, 1994, in Cause No. F-9451222WL in the "363rd Judicial District Court" of Dallas County for possession of cocaine. The indictment contained an enhancement allegation. Appellant's community supervision was revoked on February 22, 2002, in "Criminal District Court No. 5" of Dallas County. Appellant contends that there was no written order entered by the 363rd District Court transferring the case to Criminal District Court No. 5. We have been provided with a supplemental clerk's record containing the minutes of the 363rd District Court and Criminal District Court No. 5 which shows (although the copies are somewhat obscure) that appellant's case (No. F-9451222WL) was transferred by the 363rd District Court to Criminal District Court No. 5. These minutes of the transferring and receiving courts show that appellant's case was properly transferred. Moreover, the record fails to show that appellant at any time objected that Criminal District Court No. 5 had no jurisdiction over his case because a transfer order had not been entered. Appellant has waived his right to complain. See Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet'n); Garcia v. State, 901 S.W.2d 731, 732 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet'n ref'd); Mills v. State, 742 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no pet'n). Norton v. State, 918 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), pet'n dism'd, improvidently granted, 969 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998), cited by appellant, is factually distinguishable and not persuasive. Appellant's point of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.