### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 05 -00 280 -CR

Da n Ca r te r , J r . , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 9030 019 , HO NORAB LE WI LF ORD F LOW ERS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y c on vic te d D an Ca

rt e r, Jr. o f d

ri vin g wh ile int oxic a te d ( “ DWI ” ), e nh anc e d to a fe lony , see Tex. Pena l Code Ann. §§ 49.04 (West 2003), .09 (West Supp. 2006), and the district
c ourt se nte nc e d h im t o s ix y e ars in p ri so n. Cart e r ra ise s fou r poi nts of e rr or on

a pp e a l. We su sta in his fi rs t po int

of e rr or and re ve rs e the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. Bac kgr ound Due t o our re solution of Carter’s f irst point of error , we ne ed pre sent only a brie f
rec itation of the fac ts. On September 15, 2001, Offic er Jeffr ey Ly de witnessed a

vehicle dr iven by Cart e r m ake a “ sli din g sto p” in the mid dle of an int e rs e c tio n. Af te r Ly de sig na le d fo r the c ar to p ull over, Car ter ra n thr ee re d lights, sig naled incor rec tly , and drove in the middle of two lanes be fore coming to a stop on top of a curb. Carter was too intoxicated to g et out of his ca r a n dfe l l down when Ly de helpe d him out of t h e ca r. Carter smelled strong ly

of alc ohol and was disheve led and red- ey ed, and L

y de testified that he had neve r see n a per son so intox icated still able to drive.Be fore Mo ff , a p p e ll a te c o u rts a

p p li e d ana b u s e o f d is c r e ti o ns ta

n d ar d w h e nr e v ie wing 1 decisions on motio n s to quash. Sta te v . M off , 154 S.W .3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Howeve r, the Mo

ff c ourt he ld t hat th e “ su ff

ic ie nc y of an in dic tme nt i s a

qu e sti on of law” that sh ou ld be re viewed de novo
. Id
. (c i t i n g Guzman v . S tate , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). Ca rte r ’ s p r io r

c o n v ic ti o nw a s a c tu a ll y

a c o n v ic ti o nf

o r inv o lu n ta r y ma n s la u g h te r un d er 2 former section 19.05(a )(2) of the pe nal code , the pre dece ssor to section 49
. 08. See Act of May 28, 1973, 63d L eg ., R.S., art. 2, § 1, 1973 Tex. Gen. L aws 1122, 1124 (se tting out sec tion 19.05 as it rea d when Car

ter wa s convicted in 1 984; replac ed by Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 49.08 (West 2003)). 2

Carter was indicted f

or DWI , en h an ced to a third-deg ree felony under subse ction 49.09(b)( 1) of the pe nal code by an alleg at ion that Carter ha d been c onvicted of involuntary manslaug hter in Oc tober 1984. Se e id
. § 49 .0 9( b) (1 ). Cart e r f ile d a mot ion to q ua shthe ind ic tme nt, which the tria l court denied. The jury convicted Carter of the fe lony

char g e, and the court sente nced him to s ix y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt.
Discussion

I n h is f ir st p oint of

e rr or , Ca rt e r a sse rt s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt im pro perl y

de nie d h is mot ion to qu a sh
. Th e ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t Ca rt e r h a d b e e n c on vic te d in 19 84 “ of an o ff e ns e 1
un de r S e c tio n 4 9. 08 Te xas P enal Cod e [int oxic a tio n ma ns la ug hte r] a nd an o ff e ns e wi th e le me nts simil ar to the elements of Section 49.09 Texas Penal C ode as follows: I nvoluntary Manslaug hter.” 2 Carter asser ts that the indictment imper missibl y enhanc ed his of

fense to a felony

beca use it relied on a convic tion that could not be used for enhanc ement under

subsection 49.09(b)( 1). We ag ree . I n an opinion issued afte r the district cour t rende red its judg ment of convic tion and the par ties briefe d their ar g uments on appea l, the court of c riminal appea ls held that a prior conviction under

former section 19.05 may

not be used for

enhan ce m en t under subsec tionA DWIis a Class B misdemea nor, see Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 49.04(b) ( West 2003), that 3 may be enha nced to a third-de gre e fe lony

if the def

endant wa s ear lier convic ted “one time of an offe nse under

Section 49.08 or an of

fense under the laws of a nother sta t e i f t h e o ff

ense c ontains elements that a

re substantially

simil ar to the e lemen t s o f an offe nse under Section 49.08.” Id
. § 4 9
. 0 9 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( W e s tS u p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ; see al

so id . § 49 .0 9( a ) ( DWI

may be e nh anc e d to Cla ss A misdemeanor w ith showing of one conviction for “ offe nse re lati n g t o t he oper ating of a motor vehicle while intox icated” ), (b) (2) (two such c onvictions may enhanc e DWIto third-deg ree felony offe nse), ( c)( 1)(E) (def

ining “ [o] ffe nse re lating to the ope ratingof a motor ve hic lewh il e in to xicated” to include forme r sec tion 19.05). Although the State argues that treating f ormer se ction 19.05 convictions diffe rently from 4 c on vic tio ns un de r i ts s uc c e sso r o r s i mil ar o ut- of

-s tate statut e s w ill le a d to a bs ur d r e su lts , th e ma

jor ity in Ro e me r noted the disparate treatment and stated, “ When the leg islature spec ifically instructs us how to deal with an of

fense , we should g ive ef fec t to each w ord and f

o l l o w t h ei r di rec tion.” Ex p a r te Roem er , 2 15 S.W. 3d 88 7, 89 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 07 ); se e id . at 895-98 (K easle r, J., c on c ur ri ng ) ( no tin g “ inc on sis te nc y ” in tr e a tme nt of se c tio n 1 9. 05 c on vic tio ns ); se e als o id . at 900-01 (C oc hr an, J., d iss e nti ng ) ( arguin g that ma jor ity ’s int e rp re tatio n “ le a ds to a bs ur d r e su lts ” ). Th e State a ls o ar g u e s th a t s e c ti o n1 9
. 0 5 c o n v ic ti o n s mu s t b e in c lu d e d f o r s u b s e c ti o n4 9
. 0 9 ( b ) ( 1 ) to h ar mo n iz e with former

section 49.09(f

), which a llowed enha

nceme nt by section 19.05 convictions more than ten y ear s old. See Act of Ma y 25, 2001, 77th L eg ., R.S., ch. 648, § 2, 2001 Tex. Ge n. L aws 1213, 1214 (subsec tion 49.09(f) wa s repe aled e ffe ctive Sept. 1, 2005, by Act of May 27, 2005, 79th L eg ., R.S., ch. 996, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. L aws 3363, 3364). Howeve r, for mer subsec tion 49.09(f) did not state that such c onvictions could be consider ed in eve ry application of se ction 49.09. Se e id
. Cart e r’ s si ng le pr ior

c on vic tio n c ou ld be us e d to e nh anc e thi s o ff e ns e to a Cla ss A 5 misdemeanor unde r subsec tion 49.09(a). Te x . Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(a ), (c )(1) (E). 3 49.09(b)( 1). Ex parte Roe mer , 215 S.W .3d 887, 889-90 (Te x . Crim. App. 2007). The court noted

3 that subsection 49.09(b)(1) does not include prior convictions under former subsection 19.05(a) (2) and held that the e x plicit inclusion of former subse ction 19.05(a) (2) c onvictions in subsection 49.09(c) as off

enses “ relating to the ope ratingof a motor vehic le while intox icated” showed that the leg islature could have included s ection 19.05 convictions in subs ection (b) (1), ha d it so chosen. Id
. 4 Carter ’s 1984 con v i ct i o n was unde r for mer sec tion 19.05, not section 49.08 or a similar law of
an o t h er s t at e. The indictm en ti mp ro p er l y u s edC art er ’s 1 9 8 4 co n v i ct i o nt o en h an ce th i s DW Ich ar ge 5 to a felony under subsection 49.09(b)( 1), and the district c ourt err ed in de nying his motion to quash.Although Ca rter did not file a

sec o n d m o t i o n to quash when the State amende d the 6 indictment one wee k befor e trial, the a mendment mere ly

corr ecte d the date of

his 1984 conviction and had no substantive e ffe ct on the alleg ations of the indictment. C arte r’s mot ion to quash, which had alr eady

been ove rruled when the indictment wa s amende d, notified t h e t ri al court of Carter ’s c omp la int s r e late d to the e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra ph , c omp la int s t hat a

pp lie d to the ind ic tme nt w ith e qu a l f or c e a ft e r t

he ame ndme nt, and

se rv e d to pr e se rv e his c omp la int fo r a pp e llate re vie w; the State does not argue other

wise. 4

Conclusion Th e ind ict ment

imp ro pe rl y

us e d a n unava ila

ble pr ior c on vic tio n to e nh anc e thi s ch ar ge t o a fe l ony

and thus serve d only

to alleg e a misdeme anor of fense . The district cour

t lacks jurisdiction over mis d em ea n o r offe nses. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. arts. 4.05, .07 (West 2 005). We there fore reve rse Car ter’s c onviction and re mand the ca use to the district court wi th i ns tr uc tio ns to t

ra ns fe r t he c a se to a

c ourt havin g jur isd ic tio n o ve r misd e me ano r o ff e ns e s. See

6 Mi tc he ll v . S

tate , 821 S.W .2d 420, 423 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 1991, pet. ref ’d). Due to our resolution of Cart e r’ s f

ir st i ssu e , w e ne e d no t a dd re ss his re ma ini ngc omp la int s a bo ut t he e ff e c tiv e ne ss o f h is trial counsel, all of which complain of counsel’s conduct rela ted to the enhanc ement of his off ense.

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Reverse d and Remande d Filed: May

15, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh