Opinion
No. 10-16-00248-CR
10-18-2017
WAYMON LEON WEBSTER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-02647-CRM-85
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Waymon Leon Webster was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of Failure to Identify and sentenced to 180 days in jail. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.02(b) (West 2016). Because the trial court erred in adjudicating Webster guilty and sentencing him to time in jail, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.
Webster raises three issues on appeal. Because it is dispositive of this appeal, we address Webster's third issue first. In that issue, Webster complains that the trial court erred in finding Webster guilty after signing an order dismissing the failure to identify charge against Webster. We agree.
RECORD
The record in this appeal shows that the charged offense was transferred to the district court from the county court at law and considered by the district court pursuant to section 12.45 of the Texas Penal Code, Admission of Unadjudicated Offense, in the plea hearing of two felony offenses. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.45(a) (West 2011). The trial court signed an Order Barring Prosecution and Release from Charges on April 18, 2016 releasing Webster from the failure to identify charge. Thus, this order dismissed the failure to identify charge against Webster. When Webster did not appear for a sentencing hearing on the two felony offenses for which the failure to identify charge was considered, the trial court, three months after it dismissed the charge, found Webster guilty of failure to identify and sentenced Webster to 180 days in jail.
The 85th District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the statutory county courts of Brazos County in misdemeanor cases as well as the jurisdiction prescribed by general law for district courts. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.187(b) (West 2004).
LAW
When a trial court dismisses an indictment or information, the accused is discharged from the accusation against him. Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, there is no case pending against the accused and, accordingly, no jurisdiction remains in the dismissing court. Id. Likewise, where there is no jurisdiction, the power of the court to act is absent, and any order rendered by a court having no jurisdiction is void. Id.
APPLICATION
Because the trial court had signed an order which effectively dismissed the charge of failure to identify, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to later adjudicate Webster guilty and assess punishment. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment attempting to determine Webster guilty and imposing a sentence for the charged offense of failure to identify is void and of no effect.
The State argues that Webster invited the error, if any, and cannot benefit from it. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Webster presented the Request to Consider Unadjudicated Offenses and Order Barring Prosecution and Release from Charges to the trial court during the plea hearing or, more specifically, that he urged that the trial court sign the Order Barring Prosecution and Release from Charges at that time. It appears clear from section 12.45(a) that the admission of an unadjudicated offense should have occurred during the punishment phase of the proceedings. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.45(a) (West 2011); Wilkins v. State, 574 S.W.2d 106, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Further, it appears that the trial court prematurely considered and dismissed Webster's failure to identify charge. The trial court's judgment is not the result of Webster's actions, and nothing Webster did could give the trial court the authority to reinstate, adjudicate, and sentence Webster on the dismissed charge. See e.g. Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) ("...the fact that respondent's exercise [of jurisdiction granting a motion to dismiss petitioner's indictment] was based upon an erroneous interpretation of the applicable law in no way affected the validity of his order of dismissal.").
Accordingly, Webster's third issue is sustained. Further, because of this disposition, we need not discuss Webster's first and second issues.
CONCLUSION
The trial court's "Judgment + Sentence" signed on July 18, 2016 is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
Reversed and remanded
Opinion delivered and filed October 18, 2017
Do not publish
[CR25]