MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 6, 2013.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01208-CR

No. 05-12-01209-CR

No. 05-12-01210-CR

ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-51396-U, F12-51397-U, F12-51398-U

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Lewis

Opinion by Justice Murphy

Alton Lee Jewel Bryant appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery, unlawful 

possession of a firearm by a felon (UPFF), and evading arrest. In a single point of error, 

appellant contends the 291st district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases and render 

judgments because the cases were not transferred to that court. We conclude the cases were 

properly filed in the 291st district court after return of the indictments and affirm the judgments, 

as modified to accurately reflect the pleas, the trial court’s findings, and the judgments. See TEX.
-2-

R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 47.4.

Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, 

UPFF, and evading arrest while using a vehicle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03(a), 

38.04(a), (b)(2)(A), 46.04(a) (West 2011). Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement each 

in the aggravated robbery and evading arrest cases. The trial court sentenced appellant to 

imprisonment, as follows: thirty years for the aggravated robbery, ten years for the UPFF, and 

twenty years for the evading arrest. The trial court also assessed a $2,000 fine in each case. 

Appellant contends in his sole point of error that the 291st Judicial District Court lacked 

jurisdiction over the cases because they were not transferred to the court’s docket. Specifically, 

the indictments in the aggravated robbery and UPFF cases were returned in Criminal District 

Court No. 5 and the indictment in the evading arrest case was returned in the 283rd Judicial 

District Court. Appellant argues transfer orders were required before the 291st Judicial District 

Court could hear the cases and render judgments.

A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires into “all offenses liable to

indictment” and hears testimony before voting on whether to indict an accused. TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.09, 20.19 (West 2005); Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1987). After the conclusion of testimony, the grand jury votes “as to the presentment 

of an indictment.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.19. Following presentment, an 

indictment is filed in a court with jurisdiction to hear the case. See Hultin v. State, 171 Tex. 

Crim. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961).

In counties having two or more district courts, the judges of the courts may adopt rules 

governing the filing, numbering, and assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the 
-3-

courts’ work they consider necessary or desirable to conduct the business of the courts. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 24.304 (West 2004); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.093 (West Supp. 

2010) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, 

docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases). Thus, a specific district court sitting in Dallas may 

impanel a grand jury; yet all cases returned by that grand jury are not necessarily assigned to the 

same court. See Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d).

Two grand juries returned indictments for appellant: Criminal District Court No. 5 and 

the 283rd Judicial District Court. The cases were then filed in the 291st Judicial District Court. 

The record does not indicate the cases were ever filed in or appeared on the trial dockets of 

Criminal District Court No. 5 or the 283rd Judicial District Court. Because the 291st Judicial 

District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s cases and render the judgments, we resolve 

appellant’s sole point of error against him.

In reviewing the record, we observe the written judgments do not accurately reflect the 

proceedings. Specifically, appellant pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph in the 

aggravated robbery and evading arrest cases and the trial court found the enhancement 

paragraphs true. Additionally, the trial court assessed a $2,000 fine in each case. Yet the

judgments in the aggravated robbery and evading arrest cases do not reflect those pleas or 

findings. The judgments in the UPFF and evading arrest cases also do not include the $2,000 

fine that was pronounced orally. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgments as follows: 

(1) in cause no. 05-12-01208-CR, we modify the judgment to show the plea to the first 

enhancement paragraph is true and the finding on the first enhancement paragraph is true; (2) in 

cause no. 05-12-01209-CR, we modify the judgment to show the fine is $2,000; and (3) in cause 

no. 05-12-01210-CR, we modify the judgment to show the plea to the first enhancement 
-4-

paragraph is true, the finding on the first enhancement paragraph is true, and the fine is $2,000. 

See TEX. R. APP. 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. App.─Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

121208F.U05

/Mary Murphy/

MARY MURPHY

JUSTICE
-5-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, 

Appellant 

No. 05-12-01208-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court of Dallas County, Texas 

(Tr.Ct.No. F12-51396-U).

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Murphy, Justices FitzGerald and Lewis 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement” is modified to show “True.”

The section entitled “Findings on 1st Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered May 6, 2013. 

/Mary Murphy/

MARY MURPHY

JUSTICE
-6-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, 

Appellant 

No. 05-12-01209-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court of Dallas County, Texas 

(Tr.Ct.No. F12-51397-U).

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Murphy, Justices FitzGerald and Lewis 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as

follows:

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$2,000.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered May 6, 2013.

/Mary Murphy/

MARY MURPHY

JUSTICE
-7-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYANT, 

Appellant 

No. 05-12-01210-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court of Dallas County, Texas 

(Tr.Ct.No. F12-51398-U).

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Murphy, Justices FitzGerald and Lewis 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement” is modified to show “True.”

The section entitled “Findings on 1st Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”

The section entitled “Fine” is modified to show “$2,000.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered May 6, 2013.

/Mary Murphy/

MARY MURPHY

JUSTICE