NO. 07-01-0070-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A NOVEMBER 1, 2001

______________________________ JAMES BISHOP, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 3 64TH DI STRICT COURT OF LU BBOCK COU NTY; NO. 2000-433944; H ONORABLE CEC IL G. PURY EAR, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ.
Pursuant to a p lea o f no t guil ty, ap pell ant J ame s Bish op wa s c onvicted of harassment

by persons in certain correctional facilities, T ex. Pen. CodeAnn. 22.11 (V er non Supp. 2001), and pun ishment was assessed by the court at ten years confinement. Presenting a sole issue on appeal, appellant contend s the trial court erre d in overru ling h is ple a to t he ju risdi ctio n ofthe 3 64th Distr ict Co urt o f Lu bbo ck Cou nty. Based u pon the ratio nale ex press ed here in, we affirm.2

On o r about Marc h 5, 2000, whi le still a juvenil e, appellant har assed a p harmac y technician who was distributing medication at the coun ty jail by throw ing urine on him. On June 16, 2000, the 137th District Courtof Lubbock County waived its juvenile jurisdic tion and tran sferred the case by writte n order to the 1 40th Distri ct Court. S hortly befor e that date, on June 1, 2000, the Honorable Bra dley S. Underwood, acting in his capacity as local adm inist rative judge, si gned an order entitled Order of the Distri ct Courts Respecting Filing of Criminal Cases, which provides: [p]ursuan t to an agree ment by and between the D istrict C ourts of Lubbock County, Tex

as, effective June1, 2000, the District Clerk of Lubbock Coun ty, Texas, wi ll file all new cri minal cases, ot her than capital murder cases, on a random basis among the 137 th Distric t Court, the 14 0 th District Court, a nd t he 364 th Distric t Court, uti lizing a computer software progr am designed for this purpos e. Said software progr am will ensure that each of the three (3) Di strict Co urts wil l be assig ned an equal number of criminal cases on a random basis. Capi tal Murder indictments w ill be assi gned to the three (3) D istrict C ourts above on a rotating basis.
The above order

was filed o n June 1, 2000, and appellant was indi cted on June 21, 2000, and arraig ned a week l ater in the 364th Distric t Court.
On October 20, 2000, the judge of the 36 4th Distri ct Court hear d pretrial motions
on other matters unrelated to thi s appeal. At tha t time defense counsel que s tioned whether appellant had been transferred from the 140th District Court to the 364th District Court by proper

procedure. The t rial court responded, “fil e whatever motion you thi nk you need to file to contest that, but it’s cu rrently setfor trial on November 1st , which i s coming up pretty q uick.” On November 1, just prior to commencement of trial, defense counsel1 Althou gh appellant arg ued his plea tothe jurisdi ction on November 1, the plea was

not filed wi th the distri ct clerk un til November 3. 3 presented a plea to the jurisd iction u rging t ha t the 364t h Dist rict C ourt did n ot ha ve jurisdict ion over appel lant because the 1 40 th Distri ct Court had not transferred the case to the 364th District Court. 1 The State argued that after the 137th D istrict C ourt waiv ed its juvenile jurisdic

tion, appellant was properly indic ted into the 364th Distric t Court. The Court denied appellant’s p lea to the jur isdiction reasoning that appellant’ s indictment i n the 364th DistrictCourt was dispositi ve of the juri sdictional i ssue, and that once t he juveni le court waived jurisdic

tion, any di strict cour

t of Lubbock County

could obtain j urisdicti on. Appellant

does not contend that the 364 th District Court did not

have subjec

t matter jurisdict ion; rather his sole contention on appeal is th atthe 3 64th Distr ict Co urt d id no t have jurisdict ion over him. He requests t hat his conv iction be rev ersed and the cause remanded to the 140th Dis trict Cour t. Pursuant to th e Texas Famil y Code, ju venile j urisdicti on was waived and app ellant was tra nsf erre d to t he 14 0th D istri ct Cou rt by writ ten o rder . Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.02 (Vernon Supp. 2001). Appel lant contends that the languag e of section 5 4.02(a) permit ting a tran sfer to “the appr opriate district court”implies that jurisdict ion over a juvenile can only be transferred to one appropri ate co urt. Rely ing on section 24.303(a) of the Texas Government Code Annotated (Vernon 1988), which deals with transfer of cases, he asserts t hat any tran sfer mu st be made in w riting or recorded. Thus, he cont ends th at altho ugh a written order transferred the case to the 140th District Court when juvenile juri sdiction w as waived, no wri tten order w as rendered transferring his4

case from the 140th Distric t Court to the 364th Dis trict Cour t. He concl udes the 364th Distric t Court had no j urisdicti on to indict or try him. We disagree.
Section 74.093 of

the Texas Government Code Annotate d (Vernon 1998) prov ides thatthe district judges in each county shall, by majority vote, adopt rules of administr ation to provide for a fairand equitabledivisi on of the caseloadsamong the dist rict court s in the
coun ty. In addition, section 74.092 au thorizes the local admini strativ e judge to ex ecute the local rules of administration, includ ing the assignment, docketing, transf er, and hearing of
cases. Based on these sections , we concl ude that the written order en titled Order of the DistrictCourt s of

Lubb ock Co unty, Texas sig ned and filed June 1, 200 0, providi ng for the random filing of new

criminal cases am ong the 1 37th, 140th, and 364th D istrict C ourts
cons titutes an effective transfer order author izing appellant’s i ndictment and tri al in the 364th Distri ct Court. A ppellant’s s ole issue is overrul ed. Accordingl y, the judg ment of the trial court is affirmed.

Don H. Reavis Justice
Do not publish

.