AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed December 11, 2017. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00416-CR JOEY MARQUEL HINES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-60278-I 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Myers Opinion by Justice Fillmore Joey Marquel Hines pleaded gui lty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and true to the enhancemen t paragraph alleged in the ind ictment. Following the terms of Hines’s plea agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudicating Hines’s guilt, and placed him on community supervision for five years. One of the conditions of Hines’s community supervision was that he commit no offense against the laws of Texas, any other state, or the United States. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging Hines viola ted several conditions of his community supervision. At th e hearing on the motion to adj udicate, the State focused solely on the allegation that, during the period of community supervis ion, Hines committed, and was convicted of, the offense of burglary of a building in Robertso n County. The trial court found the allegation that Hines committed an offense against the laws of the State of Texas was true,–2– adjudicated him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weap on, and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. In one issue, Hines contends the trial court lacked jurisdictio n to hear the case and render a judgment because there was no written order transferring the case to its docket. Hines specifically argues the indictment in this case was originally presented to the 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County; subsequently, the case appeare d on the docket of Criminal District Court No. 2, where it r emained through the entry of ju dgment. No transfer order appears in the record. Therefore, Hine s asserts the 291st Judicial Dis trict Court retained jurisdiction, and Criminal District Court No. 2 ne ver acquired jurisdiction over this case. Texas courts have concluded the absence of a transfer order fro m the record is a procedural error rather tha n a jurisdictional error. Mills v. State , 742 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 1987, no pet.); Lemasurier v. State, 91 S.W.3d 897, 899–900 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2002, pet. ref’d). 1 Hines failed to file a formal plea to the jurisdiction with t he trial court. Therefore, he failed to preserv e this complaint for appeal. See Mills , 742 S.W.2d at 835;
Lemasurier , 91 S.W.3d at 899–900. 2 Even if Hines had preserved this complaint for appeal, we concl ude his argument lacks merit. A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge i nquires “into all offenses liable to indictment,” and hears all the testimony available before votin g on whether to indict an accused.
T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. arts. 20.09, 20.19 (West 2015). Becau se the court “exercises s ome ‘supervisory power over the grand jury,’” the grand jury is “of ten characterized as an arm of the court by which it is appointed rather than an autonomous entity .” Bourque v. State , 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (quoting Dallas Cnty. Dist. Attorney v. Doe , 969

1 See also Jamison v. State , No. 05-15-00086-CR, 2016 WL 1725489, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 27, 2016, per. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
2 See also Jamison , 2016 WL 1725489, at *1.–3– S.W.2d 537, 542 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.)). After the c onclusion of testimony, a grand jury votes “as to the presentment of an indictment.” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 20.19;
Allen v. State , No. 01-16-00768-CR, 2017 WL 5712602, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 28, 2017, no pet. h.). Following presentment, an indictme nt is filed in a court with jurisdiction to hear the case. See Bourque , 156 S.W.3d at 678 (citing Hultin v. State , 171 Tex. Crim. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961)). District judges in cou nties having two or more district courts “may adopt rules governing the filing and numbering of c ases, the assignment of cases for trial, and the distribu tion of the work of the courts as in the ir discretion they consider necessary or desirable for the orderly dis patch of the business of the co urts.” T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 24.024 (West Supp. 2017); see also id. § 74.093 (West Supp. 2017) (addre ssing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, do cketing, transfer, and hearing of cases). Thus, a specific district court may impanel a grand ju ry, but it does not necessarily follow that all cases returned by that grand jury are assigned to the impaneling court. Bourque , 156 S.W.3d at 678; Allen , 2017 WL 5712602, at *3. While the record shows the 291st Judicial District Court presid ed over the grand jury that returned the indictment, the cas e was thereafter filed in Crimi nal District Court No. 2. We take judicial notice that both of the se courts are located in Dallas County. Nothing in the record indicates the case was ever filed in or appeared on the trial d ocket of the 291st Judicial District Court. Because Criminal Distri ct Court No. 2 had jurisdiction to hear Hines’s case and render the judgment, we resolve Hi nes’s issue against him.–4– We affirm the trial court’s judgment

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47
170416F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JOEY MARQUEL HINES, Appellant
No. 05-17-00416-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F14-60278-I. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Lang and Mye rs participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of t his date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 11th day of December, 2017.