AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Op inion Filed March 3, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-01570-CR JUAN MARTIN PEDROZA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1875239-H MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness , Pedersen, III, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Appellant Juan Martin Pedroza a ppeals his conviction for murder , challenging as his sole issue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to r ender judgment because this case was not properly transf erred to its docket. In a cros s-point, the State requests that we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect A ppellant’s place of confinement as “Institutional Division, TDCJ.” Based upon well- settled jurisprudence established in this Court, we modify the judgment and affirm in this memorandum opinion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.4.–2– I. BACKGROUND In February 2018, Appellant was arrested for the 2010 murder ofthen sixteenyear-old Jacob Guerra. On February 16, 2018, Appellant was arra igned by a magistrate assigned to the 292nd Judicial District Court of Dal las County, during which Appellant requested an atto rney be appointed to represent him. That request was granted four days later by the Criminal District Court Numb er One of Dallas County. 1 On March 20, 2018, a grand jury empaneled in the Criminal Dist rict Court Number Six of Dallas County returned an indictment against Appe llant for murder. The indictment was filed in Criminal District Court Number One. The record contains no order of transfer as between the 292nd District Cou rt, Criminal District Court Number One, or Criminal District Court Number Six. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and entered an open plea of guilty. Criminal District Court Number One (hereinafter, the trial cour t) held a sentencing hearing on December 6, 2019, whe rein the trial court accepted A ppellant’s guilty plea, found Appellant guilty of the crime charged, and made an affirmative deadly weapon finding on the record. At the conclusion of the sentenci ng hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at 25 y ears’ confinement in the “Inst itutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.” The trial court memo rialized its ruling in a Judgment of Conviction, ent ered on December 17, 2019, refl ecting Appellant’s

1 Appellant later retained counsel for his defense.–3– place of confinement as “TDCJ, Co rrectional Institutions Divisi on.” This appeal timely followed.
II. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdictional Challenge In his sole issue, Appellant cont ends that the trial court, Cri minal District Court Number One, lacked jurisdiction over this case because Cr iminal District Court Number Six, which empanele d the grand jury that returned his indictment, did not enter an order of transfer. “When a defendant fails to file a plea to the jurisdiction, he waives any right to complain that a transfer o rder does not appear in the record.” Keller v. State , 604 S.W.3d 214, 231 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, pet. ref’d) (quoting Wilson v. State , No. 05-18-00801-CR, 2019 WL 3491931, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 1, 2019, no pet. ) (mem. op., not designated fo r publication) (citing Lemasurier v. State , 91 S.W.3d 897, 899 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) and Mills v. State , 742 S.W.2d 831, 834–35 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no pet.))). Appellant faile d to file a plea to the jurisdiction in the trial court and, absent an objection, waived the issue under our long-standing preceden t. Mills , 742 S.W.2d at 835. Appellant acknowledges that his position on appeal is a gainst current authority. Even if Appellant’s sole issue had been preserved, we would fin d no error because the record does not show a transfer was necessary. Juri sdiction lies in the court in which the indictment or complaint is first filed. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

.–4– A NN . art. 4.16. In large counties w ith multiple district courts, s uch as Dallas, the judges of those courts “may adopt rules governing the filing an d numbering of cases, the assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the work of the courts as in their discretion they consider necessary or desirable for the o rderly dispatch of the business of the courts.” Bourque v. State , 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d) (quoting T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 24.304 (now codified at T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 24.024)). The court impaneling a grand jury is not necessaril y assigned all cases returned by the grand jury. Bourque, 156 S.W.3d at 678. “When two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction of any criminal offense, the court in which an indictment or a complaint shall first be filed shall r etain jurisdiction except as provided in Article 4.12.” 2 T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 4.16; Mills, 742 S.W.2d at 834-35. The record reflects that although Appellant was indicted by a g rand jury empaneled by Criminal District Court Number Six, the indictment was filed, and the case tried, in Criminal District Court Number One. Thus, even i f Appellant had preserved his sole issue on appeal, the record reflects no reve rsible error. Murphy v. State , No. 05-19-00886-CR, 2020 WL 73 96009, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 17, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not d esignated for publication) (t ransfer order was

2 Article 4.12 is inapplicable here, as it governs jurisdiction over misdemeanors. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P. A NN

. art. 4.12.–5– unnecessary where the record refl ected that the indictment was first filed in the court in which the case was tried); Bourque , 156 S.W.3d at 678. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.
B. Modification of Judgment In its sole cross-issue, the State requests that we modify the judgment to reflect the correct place of Appellant’s confinement. Although the tria l court pronounced Appellant’s sentence as 25 years confinement in the “Institutio nal Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,” the judgment states, in “Punishment and Place of Confinement,” that the sentence is “25 YEARS TDCJ, COR RECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.” We have the power to modify an incorrect judgment to make the r ecord speak the truth when we have the necessary information before us to d o so. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). W e have previously exercised this power to correct a judgment to r eflect the correct place of confinement in circumsta nces nearly identical to this case. See Titus v. State , No. 05-19-00393-CR, 2020 WL 2988643, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Ju ne 4, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not des ignated for publication). Therefore, based upon the record, we modify the trial court’s j udgment to correctly reflect Appellant’s place of confinement as “Institut ional Division, TDCJ.”–6– As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 191570F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JUAN MARTIN PEDROZA, Appellant
No. 05-19-01570-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1875239-H. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III participating. Based on the Court’s opinion o f this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: “Punishment and Place of Confinement: 25 YEARS Institutional Division, TDCJ.” As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered March 3, 2021