See T exas Pena l C ode Ann. § 49. 09( b) ( 2) ( Ver non Supp. 200 8) 1 See T exas Pena l C ode Ann. § 12. 42( d) ( Ver non Supp. 200 8) . 2 NO. 07-08 -037 2-CR

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C SEPTEM BER23, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JAMES R. CHILDRESS, APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 0 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO . 200 7- 415,783 ; H ON ORABLE JIM BOB D AR NE LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, James R . C hil dress , was conv icted b y a j ur y of the t hird deg ree felony offense of dri v ing w hile int ox ic ated, enhanc ed by two pr ior

felony co nv icti ons, and 1 2Because t he u nder l y i ng f act s per t i nent t o t he D W I off ense ar e notr el ev antt o Appel l ant ’ s sol e i ssue 3 concer ni ng t he j ur i sdi ct i on o ft he t r i al cour t , we wi l l di spense wi t h a r eci t at i on o ft hose f act s.

Appel l antdoe s notasser t t hatt he t r i al cour t ’ s j ur ychar ge at t he concl usi on oft he p uni shm entpha se 4 was def ect i v e. Accor di ngl y , an y g rou nd fo r appeal on t hi s basi s has been wai v ed. T ex. C ode C r i m . Pr oc. A n n . a rt. 1 .1 4 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ) & T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1
. 2 sent enced to confine ment for thi rty y ears. Bya s ing le is sue, Appel lan t c ontes ts w hether th e tr i al c ou rt ha d j ur i s di cti on o v er t he s ub j ect ma tt er

o f t hi s c au s e. W e affi r m. Back ground T he ind ictme nt in this cau se alleged th at on or a b o u t Nov em ber 18 , 200 6, in Lub bock C ou nty , Texas , Ap pe l l an t op erat ed a mo to r v eh i c l e i n a pu bl i cp l ac e w hi le in t o xic a t e d
. T h e DW I co u n twa s e n h a n c e d t o a t h ird d e gre e fe lo n y b y a ll e ga t io n s o f two 3 pr ior D W I conv icti ons on November 13, 2003, and Jul y 18, 2002, re specti v ely
. Appel lan t ple d “ tr ue” t o t h e se enhanc ements dur ing the g uil t/i nnoce nce phase of the t ri al. Atthe conclu sion of

the guilt/inno cence pha se, th e trial court instructe d the jury as follows: Our l aw prov ide s t hat a ny

perso n w ho is intox ic ated w hil e dr iv ing or operati ng a m o t o r ve h ic le in a p u b li cp la c e , a n d wh o h a s p re vio u s ly b e e n c o n vic t e d two time s or more of

being intoxicated w hile ope rating o r drivi ng a m oto r v ehicle in a p u b li cp la c e sh a ll b e gu il ty o f a fe lo n y. 4 T he ind ictm e n ta ls o co n t a in e d two re p e a to f fe n d e r fe lo n y e n h a n c e m e n t paragraph s. Spec ific all y , t he i ndi ctmental leg ed App ell ant h ad been co nv icted o f felony pos ses si on of a con trolled sub stan ce on Octob er 2 5, 199 4, an d felon y deliv eryof

a contro lled sub stan ceSee A c t o fM a y 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , 7 9 L e g ., R .S ., c h
. 9 9 6 , § 4 , 2 0 0 5 T e x . G e n . L a w s 3 3 6 3 , 3 3 6 4 ( p r e s e n tly th 5 T ex. Penal C ode Ann. § 49. 09 ( Ver non Supp. 200 8) )
. Forconv eni ence, pr ov i si ons oft he T exas Pena l C ode w i l l be ci t ed t hro ug ho ut t he rem ai nd er of t hi s op i ni on si m pl yas “se c t i on __ __ ” or “§ __

__ . ” 3 on Feb ruary 12, 199 1. During the pun ishm entpha se, Ap pellan t also pled “true” to these enh ance me nts. Fol low ing a j ur

y tr ial , Ap pel lan t w as found g uil ty of felony D W I w it h enhan cement s and s entenc ed to thi rty y ears c onfinement. Thi s a ppeal foll owed.

Discus sion Appel lan t c ontendsthatbec ause a s tatut or y amendment effe ct ive Se ptember 1, 200 5, repe aling § 49.0 9(e) of the T exas Pena l Code, specif ically p rov ides tha t an o f

fense 5 i s c o n s i d e re d t o h a v e b e e n c o mm i tt e d b e fo re t h e e ffe ct i v e d a t e o f t h e a me n d me n ti f any ele m ent of

the of fense was com mitt ed b efore tha t dat e, an d beca use a prior DW I of fense is an ele m ent of

the of fense , t h e n t h e c u r re n t o ffe n s e i s g o v e r n e d b y t h e pr ior co de becau se hispr ior

D W I conv icti ons occ ur re d before the effect ive dat e of the amendment. Appel lan t t hen c ontendsthe tr ial co urt l ack ed j ur is dicti on bec ause the a p p lic ati on of the amended s tatut e to the fact s o f thisca se depr ived th e tr ial co urt of j ur is dicti on. At a ll ti mes rele v ant to thi s appeal , a DW I offense has been puni shabl e as a felony of the th ird degree if

it is shown o n the t rial of t he of fense t hatthe de fend anthas previously bee n con v icted two tim es of a ny oth er o f

fense rela ting to t he ope ration o f a mot or v ehicle w hil e i ntox ic ated. Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 49.09( b) (2 ) (V e rn o n S upp. 2008)
. Pr ior toSee T ex. P enal C ode Ann. § 49. 09( e) (Ver non 2001) pr ov i di ng: ( e) Exceptas pr ov i ded bySubsect i on 6 ( f ) , a conv i ct i on m aynotbe used f or pur poses of enhan cem ent under t hi s sect i on i f : ( 1) t he co nv i ct i on was a fi na l co nvi c t i on un de r Su bs ec t i on (d); (2) t he offen s e fo r wh i c h t he pe rso n i s be i ng t ri ed w as co m m i t t ed m ore t han 10 y ear s aft ert he l at est of : ( A) t he d at e on whi ch t he j udgm entwas en t er ed fort he p r ev i ous co nv i ct i on; ( B) t he d at e on whi ch t he p er son was di schar ge d for m anyper i od o fcom m uni t ysupe r v i si on o n whi ch t he per son was pl aced f or t he pr ev i ous conv i ct i on; ( C ) t he dat e on whi ch t he p er son su ccessf ul l ycom pl et ed a ny per i od o fpar ol e on whi ch t he p er son was r el eased aft er ser v i ng a por t i on of t he t er m t o whi ch t he p er son was s en t enced f ort he p r ev i ous co nv i ct i on; or( D ) t he d at e on whi ch t he p er son co m pl et ed se r v i ng a nyt er m f or whi ch t he p er son was conf i ned ori m pr i soned f orthe p revi ous conv i ct i on; and ( 3) t he p er son h as no t bee n c o n v i c te d o f a n o ff e n s e u n d e r S e c ti o n 4 9 .0 4 , 4 9 .0 5 , 4 9 .0 6 , 4 9 .0 6 5 , 4 9 .0 7 , o r 4 9 .0 8 o r a n yo ff e n s e re l a te d to oper at i ng a m ot orvehi cl e whi l e i nt oxi cat ed wi t hi n 10 y ear s oft he l at estdat e underSubdi v i si on ( 2)
. ( R epeal ed Act of M ay25, 200 1, 79 Leg
. , R
. S. , ch. 996 , § 2, 200 1 T ex. G en L aws 1213 , 121 4. th 4 September

1, 2005, § 49. 09( e)prov ide d tha t a pr ior D W I c onv icti on c oul d notbe u sed for pur posesof enhanc ing a ne w D W I offense to a felony i f the c onv icti on was too remote. 6 Sect ion 49 .09 (e) ef

fectively barred th e Sta te, in certa in circumsta nces, f rom u sing certain conv icti ons to prov e the el ements of a felo ny D W I. As su ch, § 49 .09( e)was more aki n to a r ule of admis si bility , asoppos ed to an e lementof the o ffense. W eaver v. Sta te, 87 S.W .3d 557 (Tex .C ri m.App. 2002) ; Vi ll a v . St ate, N o. 07 -0 6- 0270- CR , 200 9 W L 24315 11, at * 4 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2009, no pet . h. ) (n ot de si g nated for publ ic ati on)
. The av er ments o f

an indi ctmentsh ow ing a felo ny co nfers jur is dicti on upon the dis tr ict c our

t. Ex parte S

p arks , 206 S.W .3d 6 80, 6 82 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)( ind ictment all eg ed misdemeano r DW I enhanced to a felony by two pr ior

D W I c onv icti ons)
. See also Mu eller v. Sta te, 119 Tex .C ri m. 628, 43 S.W .2d 589, 590 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1931); Rob les v. State , 38 Tex .C ri m. 81, 41 S.W . 620 , 620 ( 1897)
. Mo re ov er , t hat a n offense, “ sound ing in fel on y , s ho ul d, o n th e proo fs, b e bu t a mi s de me an or , th i s wou l d no t ou s t th e District Court of jurisdiction.” Ingle v

. St ate , 4 Tex .A p p . 9 1 , 1 878 W L 8937, at *1 ( Tex .C t.Ap p. 1878)
.5

Beca use the i ndi ctment here pl ain ly al leg es a mi sdemeano r DW I enh anced to a felony by two pr ior

D W I c onv icti ons, the tr ia l co u rthad subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on ov er Appell a n t’ s c ase re g ardle ss w hether the ear li er

v ersi on of the enhanc ement s tatut e appl ied
. W hether , on the fact s o f a case, an ear li er ve rs ion of

a sta tute suc h as § 49 .09( e) isappl ic abl e to thi s cas e is“ a matt er of ev ide nce, ” not j ur is dicti on. Spa rks , 206 S.W .3d a t 682. S e eMo r

e n ov . S ta te , No
. 0 7- 03- 0505- CR , 200 5 W L 28397 47, a t * 2 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo 2005 , no pe t.) (not de signated for pub lication). App ellant ’s sing le is sue isov er ru led
. Conclusion The tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Patr ic k A . Pi rt le Jus ti ce Do not p ubl is h.