Opinion
No. 05-05-01669-CR
Opinion issued November 9, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F95-00452-JI. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and RICHTER.
OPINION
In this appeal from a conviction for felony theft, James Byron McLeod contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment and the sentence pronounced was void. We conclude appellant's arguments are without merit. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of felony theft pursuant to a plea agreement. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years' confinement but suspended the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision probation for five years. The court also imposed a fine and restitution. Approximately one year later, the State moved to revoke appellant's probation contending appellant failed to report to his probation officer and was delinquent in paying both his probation fee and restitution. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the motion. Following a hearing, the trial court assessed a sentence of two years' confinement in state jail. This appeal ensued. In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and render judgment. The indictment against appellant was returned in Criminal District Court No. 3. However, Criminal District Court No. 2 conducted all the proceedings and rendered judgment in this cause. Appellant argues that Criminal District Court No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to take any action in this cause because there is no order in the record transferring the case to that court. The State responds that appellant waived his right to complain about the absence of a transfer order by failing to timely object. We agree. The absence of a transfer order is a procedural error and does not render the actions of the transferee court void. See Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.). A defendant may challenge the absence of a transfer order by filing a timely plea to the jurisdiction. Id. If the defendant does not file a timely plea to the jurisdiction, he waives his right to complain that a transfer order does not appear in the record. Id. Appellant did not challenge the trial court's jurisdiction over this matter at the time he was convicted and placed on probation. Consequently, appellant's complaint is untimely. See id. We overrule appellant's first point of error. In his second point of error, appellant contends the sentence orally pronounced by the trial court at the time he was placed on probation is void. Specifically, appellant argues the trial court's oral pronouncement placing him on probation for "three to five years" was not authorized by statute. The written judgment in this case states that appellant is placed on probation for a period of five years. This sentence is within the permissible range of punishment under article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon Supp. 2006). A defendant placed on community supervision probation may raise issues relating to his conviction and punishment at the time the probation is imposed. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). If such issues are not raised at the time probation is imposed, they may not be raised in later appeals after the probation is revoked. Id. Appellant did not object to or appeal from the trial court's oral pronouncement of his probationary period at the time he was convicted and his probation was imposed. Accordingly, appellant has waived any error associated with the pronouncement of his sentence. See id. We overrule appellant's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.