Finney v. State

Full title: MATTHEW LEE FINNEY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Apr 29, 2005

No. 05-05-00013-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 29, 2005)

Opinion

No. 05-05-00013-CR

Opinion Filed April 29, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F01-40276-UL. Affirmed.

Before Justices WHITTINGTON, MOSELEY, and LANG-MIERS.

OPINION

LANG-MIERS, Justice.

Matthew Lee Finney waived a jury trial and entered a negotiated guilty plea to aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant's guilt, placed him on ten years' probation, and assessed a $2000 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to proceed with adjudication, alleging appellant violated his probation. The trial court granted the State's motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at ten years' confinement and a $2000 fine. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by certifying that appellant had no right to appeal, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment. We affirm. In his first point of error, appellant argues the trial court's certification is defective because it erroneously states appellant waived his right to appeal. The State responds appellant's complaint has been rendered moot because the trial court amended its certification. We agree with the State. The record has been supplemented with a copy of the trial court's amended certification showing that appellant has the right to appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We overrule appellant's first point of error. In his second point of error, appellant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment in this case because it was not properly transferred to its docket. Appellant contends the indictment was returned in the 291^st Judicial District Court, but there is no order transferring the case to Criminal District Court No. 5. The State responds the fact that no transfer order is contained in the record is a procedural matter, not a jurisdictional one, and appellant waived the right to complain by not filing a timely plea to the jurisdiction. We agree with the State's arguments. Appellant did not raise the absence of a transfer order in the trial court. Consequently, appellant's complaint, raised for the first time on appeal, is untimely. See Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.). We overrule appellant's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.