## IN TH E C OU RT OF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS O F T E XAS

N O
. PD - 1761- 08 A LV I N M I K E G A R Z A , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE SE VENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA LE COU NTY J O HNS ON , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h M E YE RS , P RI CE , W OMACK , H OL C OM B , and C OCHR AN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P. J. , f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng opi ni on i n w hi c h M E YE RS , K EASLE R , and H ERVEY , JJ . , j oi ne d. O P I N I O N Appellant appe aled his convic tion for attempted a g g ravated assault. Appellant wa s char g ed by in for mat ion , w hic h a lle g e d th a t he did int e nti on a lly , k

no wi ng ly , o r r e c kle ssl y

a tte mpt to c a us e bodily injury to the named complainant by striking her i n the face w ith a closed fist. Appe llant plead g uilty pursuant to a plea

ag ree ment, and the trial court found him g uilty of attempted a g g ravated

a ssa ult , s us pe nd e d h is te n- y e a r se nte nc e , an d pla c e d him on co mmunit y su pe rv isi on fo r te n y e a rs . Subsequently , afte r conduc ting a hear ing on the state’s revoc ation motion, the trial court r evoked the community

supervision and sente nced a ppellant to ten y ear s’ imprisonment and a $1,000 f ine.2

Upon appellant’s appea l, the court of appeals held that, in light of the c harg ing instrument alleg ing misdeme anor c lass A assault rat h er than ag g ravated assault, “the trial court c onvicted appellant f

or a c rime other, a

nd much g reater, than that containe d in the char g ing instrument a nd levied a se ntence exceeding the maxim um applicable to the c rime enc ompassed by the act u al

c h ar g in g in s tr

u me n t[ , ]” a n d

th a t “ [n ]e it

h e r is p e r mi s s ib le.” Gar

za v . S tat e , 269 S.W .3d 300, 302 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2008). Acc ording ly , the cour t of appe als reve rsed the judg ment and re manded the ca use for further proce eding s, including th e dete rmination of whethe r the trial c ourt had jurisdiction over this misdemeanor of fense

. Id . T his Court

g ra nte d re vie w of a ll thr e e of the state prosec uting attorney ’s g rounds for r eview. T hose g rounds ask: 1. May a cour t of appe als, throug h unassig ned error, raise an issue that an Appe llant wo uld be pr e c lud e d f

ro m r a isi ngon

a pp e a l? 2. Did the information fi led in conjunction with Appellant’s wa iver of indictment pe rm it a c on vic tio n fo r the fe lony of fe ns e to wh ic h Ap pe lla

nt p le d a nd sti pu la te d h is g uilt when the information fa cially alleg ed a misdeme anor? 3. Should error be assig ned and br iefing order ed bef ore a court of a

ppeals may re v er se a c onviction based on e rror not raised by

the par ties, even when a nove l constitutional iss ue is not involved? We reve rse a

nd vaca te the judgme nt of the cour t of appe als and re mand this cause to that c ourt for further considera

tion. The re cord c ontains a “Stipulation of Evidence ,” signe d by appellant and his attorney , and by the trial cour

t as “Appr oved by

the Court afte r beingaff

irmed by the Defenda

nt in open Court.” The re cord does not contain any transcr iption of t he plea proce eding s. The sti pulation refle cts that appellant stipulated to attempting to cause serious bodily injury to the named c omplainant by str ik ing her in the f

ace with a closed f

ist. The word “ serious” is handwr itten and inserte d betwee n the words3

“ca use” a nd “bodily .” On direc t appea l, appellant’s points of er ror listed the following “issues pre sented.” The trial c ourt improperly sentenc ed appe llant for a third de g ree felony , which wa s outside the maxi mum rang e of punishment author ized by law for the offe nse cha

rg ed in this case. The j u d g me n t o f th e tr ia l c o u rt w a s v o id b e c a u s e th e s e n te n c e w a s o u tside the ma ximumra

ng e of punis hme nt aut ho ri zed

by law f or the of fe ns e c ha rg e d in thi s case . The trial c ou rt d i d n o t have jur isdiction to enter the judg ment ag ainst appellant fi nd ing him g uil ty of the thi rd de g re e fe lony of fe ns e of a tte mpt e d a g g ra

vate d a ssa ult , imposing a s entenc e of f elony community

supervision, revokinghis felony community

supervision and imposing a sentenc e of inc arc eration in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Institut ional Division. Appellant’s a

rg uments befor e the c ourt of appe als included assertions that the re cord did not demonstrate that he int ended to cause serious bodi ly injury and instead a ffirmatively

showed that he did not use his f

ist a s a deadly wea

pon in a manner capa

ble of causing serious bodily injur y , thus

un de r t he fa c ts i n th e re c or d, he c ou ld h a ve be e n f ound g uil ty of a tte mpt e d a ssa

ult , o r at mo st a ssa

ult , a cla ss A misdemeanor. ( Appellant’s dire ct-a ppeal br ief be fore the cour t o f ap p ea l s, pp. 7-8.) He i n s i s t edt h at t h e t ri al co u rt l ac k edj u ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s ca s e a n d t h a t t h e j u d gm en ti mp o s i n g a sentenc e for

a third-de g ree felony

was ther efor e void. ( Ap p el l an t ’s direc t-appe al brief befor e the court o f a p p e a ls , p . 8

. ) A p p e ll a n t a r g u e d th a t it w a s u n d is p u te d th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt h a d ma d e an aff irmative finding that he did not use a deadly wea pon in this assault, as evidenc ed by the judg ment ref lecting “N/A” under “Finding s on Dea dly Weapon.” (Appellant’s dire ct-a ppeal br ief be fore the court of a ppeals, p. 10.) He also argued that, when the trial court makes an aff irmative finding that no deadly wea pon was used, i t fo l l o ws t h at the hands or fists were not capa

ble of c ausing serious bodily injury in the manner used. (Appe llant’s direc t-appe al brief befor e the court of appe als, p. 11.)4

He a rgue d th a t th e on ly

of fe ns e tha t th e indi ctm ent in thi s c a se c ou ld p os sib ly have a lle g e d w a s a

m i s demea

nor assa ult, that the district court in this case did not have jurisdiction over the misdemeanor of

fense of assa

ult, and that the jurisdiction of the district court wa s never invoked. There fore , he re asoned, a

ny judgme nts entere d ag ainst him on the basis of the information ar e void. (Appe llant’s direc t-appe al brief befor e the c ourt of appe als, p. 11.) T h e s t at e’ s fi rs tgro u n d

fo r r ev i ew as s er t s t h at t h e c o u rt o f ap p ea l s ra i s edan i s s u e t h r o u gh unassig ned er

ror. The state specifically argues t hat “the Court of Appea ls rever sed and r emande d on unassig ned er

ror, holding that Appe l l an t was im proper ly convicted of

attempted ag g ravated assault, a f

elony , when he had only

been c harg ed with attempted assault, a misdemea nor.” ( State’s Amended Petition for Disc retionar y Review, p. 2.) “Appe llate cour

ts have the jurisdiction and authority to revie w unassig ned er ror.” Bigon v. Sta te , 252 S.W .3d 360, 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). “Onc e an a ppellate c ourt has jurisdiction over

a ca se, the limits of the issues that the court may addre ss are set only by that court’s discr etion and any valid restric tive statute.” Re za c v . S tat e , 78 2 S. W.2 d 8 69 , 8 70 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ). Thus , “[a]ppellate courts are fre e to r eview ‘unassig ned err or’–a claim that was prese rved in the tria l below but was not raise d on appea l.” Pe na v . S tat e , 191 S.W .3d 133, 136 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Appellant did, in fac t, raise claims complaining about t he conflict betwee n the judg ment and sentenc e for

a fe lony offe nse and the o ff

en s e charg ed in this case. T here fore , in addre ssing that claim, the cour

t of appe als was not re viewing unassig ned er ror. B e c a us e the st ate ’s fir st g ro un d f or re vie w’ s p re mis e is b a se d u po n th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls raising an issue “thr oug h unassig ned er ror,” and the court of appea ls did not raise such an issue, w e

overr ule g round one.5

The state’ s third gr ound for revie w, which complains about a conviction being reve rsed on

anis s u e w it

h o u t b r ie f in g b e in g o r d e r e d , a ls o p r e s u p p o s e s th a t t

h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls “ r e v e r s e [d ] a

c on vic tio n b a se d o n e rr or

no t ra ise d by the pa

rt ie s[.]” We re ite ra

te that a pp e lla nt d id r a ise c omp la int s about the trial c ourt’s convic tion and sentenc e for an off ense that w as g reater than that alleg ed in the char g ing instrument. The state ac knowl edg es that in Pena , su pra at 137, we ha

ve held that a

n ap p el l at e court need not orde r brief ing e very time it decides to raise an issue su a s po nte
. I t a lso

a c kn ow le dg e s th a t “ Ap pe lla nt d id a rgue in his br ie f that a vo id jud g me nt c a n be ra ise d f or the fi rs t time in an appea l from the re vocation of pr obation, but the C ourt of Appe als did not address it.” (State’s B rief on the Merits, p. 10.) Since the state’s third g round for revie w is, like the first g round, based upon the faulty

premise of the court of appea ls r aising an issue throug h unassig ned er ror, we

overr ule g round three

. Th e state ’s se c on d g ro un d f or re vie w a sk s w he the r t

he inf or ma tio n f ile d in c on jun c tio n w ith appellant’ s waiver

of indictment permits a conviction for the felony offe nse to w hich appellant pled and stipulated his g uilt when the information fac ially alleg ed a misdemea nor. The state points out that a pp e lla nt sig ne d a de fe nd a nt’ s “ wa ive r of ri g hts to ind ic tme nt by a g ra nd jur y ” a nd a rgue s th a t, since only

felony d ef

en d ants have a

rig ht to indictment by

a g rand jury , by

signingthe waive r, appellant implicitly

acknow ledg ed that he w as cha rg ed with a felony

. The state also notes that the

wa ive r e xplic itl y state d, “ Iun de rs tand that I have be e n c ha

rg e d w iththe of

fe ns e of At te mpt to

c omm it Ag g . Ass a

ult w/ de a dly we a po n. ” I t in sis ts that si nc e the inf or ma tio n a c te d a s a

su bs tit ute fo r the ind ic tme nt a

nd wa s f ile d in the dis tr ic t c ourt , it

wa s su ff ic ie nt t o v e st the dis tr ic t c ourt wi th jurisdiction because it shows an intent to c harg e a fe lony , thus the omissi on of the fe lony element fr om t he inf or ma tio n d id n ot d e fe a t th e distri ct cou rt ’s juri sd ic tio n. Th e state c ite s Kirkpatrick v.6

Sta te , 279 S.W .3d 324 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), and Te al v . S tat e , 230 S.W. 3d 17 2, 18 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ), in s up po rt

of its a rgume nt. The state’ s c la im

o n d is c r e ti o n a

r y r e v ie w cor

responds with appe llant’s issues on direct a ppeal that challeng ed the c onflict of the tria l court’s c onviction and sentenc e for a felony offe nse with the

c ha rg ingins tr

ume nt’ s a lle g a tio n o f a

mis de me a no r o ff

e ns e . Th e c ourt

of a pp e a ls’ s o pin ion

in t his

case was ha

nded down on Nove mber 12, 2008. We issued our opinion in Kirkpatrick , su pra , which involved char g ing instruments that fa cially alleg e misdemea

nor off enses but re s u l t i n felony convictions and sente nces, on Ma rch 18, 2009. Be cause Kirkpatrick

wa s is su e d a

nd be c a me fi na l a ft e r t

he co urt of app e a ls d e liv e re d it s opinion in thi s case , it did not have the bene fit of Kirkpatrick wh e n a dd

re ssi ngthe pa

rt ie s’ c la ims

. And bec ause of Kirkpatrick ’s re levanc e to the issues ra ised by appellant on dire ct appe al a n d the state on discre tionary

revie w, we remand this cause to the court of appeals s o that it may have the opportunity

to addre ss the parties’ claims in light of Kirkpatrick

. We reve rse a

nd vaca te the judg ment of the c ourt of appe als and re mand this cause to that court for further consideration.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 10, 2010 Do no t pu bli sh