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

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 0 1208
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01209
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01210
- CR
ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYA NT , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Distri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 12
- 51396
- U, F12
- 51397
- U, F12
- 51398
- U 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Lewis Opinion b y Justice Murphy Alton Lee Jewel Bryant appeals his con victions 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 judgment s 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 T EX
.- 2

- R. A PP
. 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 T EX
. P EN AL C ODE A NN
. § § 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. T he trial court sentenced appellant to imprisonment, as follows: thirty years fo r 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.
A ppellant contends in his sole point of error that the 291st Judicial District Court lacked jurisdiction over the case s because t hey w ere not transferred to the court ’ s docket. Specifically,
t he indictment s in the aggravated robbery and UPFF case s were returned in Criminal District Court No. 5 and t he indictment in the evading arrest case was returned in th e 2 83rd Judicial District Court

. Appellant argues transfer orders were required before the 291st Judicial District
Court could hear the case s and render judgment s . 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. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. 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.” T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . 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 countie s 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 T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 24.304 (West 2004); see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 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). Thu s, 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 th e

same court. See Bourque v. State , 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, pet. ref ’ d).
T wo grand juri es returned indictments for appellant: Criminal District Court No. 5 and the 283rd Judicial District Court . T he cases were the n filed in the 291st Judicial District Court. The record does not indicate th e case s w ere ever filed in or appeared on the tria l docket s of Criminal District Court No. 5 or the 283rd Judicial District Court. Because the 291st Judicial District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant ’ s case s and render the judgments, we resolve appellant’s sole point of error against him. In revi ewing 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
pa ragraphs 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 th ose pleas or findings

. T he 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 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. App.─Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). As modified, w e affi rm the trial court’s judgment s .

D o Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 121208F.U05 /Mary Murphy/ MARY MURPHY JUSTICE- 5

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYA NT , 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 da te, 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 judgm ent.

Judgment entered May 6, 2013.
/Mary Murphy/ MARY MURPHY JUSTICE- 6

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYA NT , Appellant No. 05

- 12

- 01209

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal fr om 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**

JUD GMENT

ALTON LEE JEWEL BRYA NT , 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 FitzGeral d 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