Opinion
WR-94,904-01
02-07-2024
EX PARTE AARON BRANDON GRAVES, Applicant
Do not publish
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 11173-A IN THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT FROM YOUNG COUNTY
Richardson, Newell, Walker, and McClure, JJ. dissented.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Applicant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.
Applicant contends that the indictment failed to vest the district court with jurisdiction because it only alleged a misdemeanor offense. The trial court has found that there were no prior driving while intoxicated convictions used or intended to be used to enhance this offense to a felony. Ex Parte Rodgers, 598 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). The trial court and the State both recommend that relief be granted.
However, the caption of the indictment alleged that the charge was "Driving While Intoxicated, Third or More." The caption also cited to "Penal Code § 49.09(b)" and labeled the offense a "Third Degree Felony." Applicant did not object to the indictment.
This Court has held that even though an indictment does not properly allege jurisdictional enhancements that make an alleged misdemeanor offense into a felony, it is possible that the return of such an indictment to a district court vests that court with jurisdiction. Kirkpatrick v. State, 279 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Here, as in Kirkpartrick, the indictment returned in district court put the defendant on notice that he was being charged with a felony. The caption also indicated the intent to charge a felony offense.
Applicant therefore does not show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that he is entitled to habeas relief. Based on this Court's independent review of the entire record, we deny relief.