Opinion
No. 05-04-00071-CR
Opinion Filed August 17, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-73140-TM. Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices O'NEILL and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kevin Gerrard Andrews pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery of an elderly person and true to one enhancement paragraph. Punishment was assessed at twenty-five years confinement. Appellant complains the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant contends the 194th Judicial District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because there was no formal transfer order from the 283rd Judicial District Court. The State responds that appellant has waived his complaint. We agree with the State. On September 26, 2003, appellant was indicted. The 283rd Judicial District Court presided over the grand jury. Appellant then appeared in the 194th Judicial District Court, where he made a "Request for Referral to Magistrate." Before the magistrate, appellant waived a jury trial, pleaded guilty to the indictment, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. The Magistrate accepted the pleas, found the evidence sufficient to substantiate guilt, and passed the case for sentencing. On December 11, 2003, the presiding judge of the 194th Judicial District Court accepted appellant's pleas of guilty and true. After hearing evidence, the judge sentenced appellant to twenty-five years confinement. At no time did appellant raise the absence of a transfer order. The lack of a transfer order is only a procedural error. It does not make the judgement void, but merely makes the transferred court's actions subject to a timely plea to the jurisdiction. Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.). Failure to timely object to the court's jurisdiction waives any complaints concerning the order. Id.; see also Mills v. State, 742 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, no pet.). Appellant did not object to the lack of a transfer order. Thus, he has not preserved his complaint for review. We affirm the trial court's judgment.