Opinion
No. 12-05-00099-CR
Opinion delivered January 18, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the Second Judicial District Court of Cherokee County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and DeVASTO, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Lawrence Finkelstein was convicted of the felony offense of making a false statement to obtain property or credit and was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, probated for ten years. Appellant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $52,844.94. Appellant raises six issues for review. We reverse the judgment of conviction and render a judgment of acquittal.
Background
On August 25, 2003, Appellant was indicted for the third degree felony offense of making a false statement to obtain property or credit. Specifically, the indictment alleged thaton or about the 20TH day of JUNE, 1997, and before the presentment of this indictment in the County and State aforesaid, [Appellant] did then and there intentionally or knowingly make a materially false or misleading statement to LORETTA SORENSON and/or the CRAFT TURNEY WATER SUPPLY BOARD, namely Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated June 20, 1997 with the intent to obtain property, namely money and/or checks worth $20,000 or more but less than $100,000 for himself or others, [and that]
. . .
on or about the 25th day of June, 1997, in said county and state, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment, [Appellant] did then and there intentionally or knowingly make a materially false or misleading statement to CARL SORENSON and/or LORETTA SORENSON, namely agreement of sale and purchase dated June 25, 1997 with the intent to obtain property, namely money and/or checks worth $20,000 or more but less than $100,000 for himself or others.Appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the offense and elected to have his case tried to a jury. On January 11, 2005, Appellant's case went to trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Appellant "guilty" of the offense charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for ten years, probated for ten years. Appellant was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $52,844.94. On appeal, Appellant contends that 1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel as required by Article 1, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution, 3) the trial court erred by failing to grant his motions for new trial, 4) the conviction and sentence should be reversed because the trial court was without jurisdiction of the case, and 5) the evidence was legally and 6) factually insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The disposition of this case lies solely in our discussion of the trial court's jurisdiction over this case; therefore, we will not address Appellant's unrelated issues.
Did the District Court Have Jurisdiction Over Appellant's Case?
Appellant did not raise the jurisdiction issue in the trial court; however, jurisdiction is a systemic requirement that cannot be waived or conferred by consent and which may be considered at any time. See Mendez v. State , 138 S.W.3d 334, 340 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).