COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.
VENI CE REYES, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-08-00164- CR

Appea l from the
243rd District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 20080D01536)

O P I N I O N
Venice Rey es was indicted for felony theft. After the t rial court g rante d Rey es’ moti on to quash, the State a

ppeale d. We will reverse

.

BACK GR OUND Rey es was indicted for theft o f p roper ty valued at $50 or more, but less than $500. The
indictment further alleg ed that Rey es was twice befor e convicted of theft, which eleva ted the Class

B misdemeanor offe nse to a state-jai l fe l o n y
. See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E AN N

. § 31.03(e) (2)( A)(i) , (e) (4)( D) (Ve rnon 2003). Be cause o n e o f the prior convictions alleg ed resulted in a probate d

s en t ence , and beca

use that probate d sentenc e was never revoke d, Rey es filed a motion t o q u as h alleg ing the State failed to char g e a final conviction to eleva te the offe nse to a felony

. After a
hear ing on the motion, the district court g rante d the motion to quash on g rounds that he lacke d felony jurisdiction since the State could not prove that prior conviction was final at the hear ing. On appea l,
the State contends, in a single issue, that the trial court err ed by requiring it to pr ove the prior theftoffe nse at the motion-to-qua sh hear ing. We ag ree
. 1

DISCUSSIO N The sufficiency of an indictment is a question of l aw. State v. Moff , 154 S.W .3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). When the resolution of a question of l aw does not turn on an evaluation
of witness cre dibilit y and demea nor, the trial court is not in a n appre ciably

better position to make
the deter mination than an appellate court. Moff , 154 S.W .3d at 601; see also Guzman v. State , 955
S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Thus, we revie w the sufficie ncy of an indictment de novo
. Moff , 154 S.W .3d at 601.
The prese ntment o f an i n d i ctm ent vests a district court with jurisdiction. See State v.
Meadows , 170 S.W .3d 617, 619 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2005, no pet.). Fur ther , jurisdiction over a felony offe nse vests with the district court when the indictment alleg es the requisite number of previous convictions. Tamez v. State , 11 S.W .3d 198, 201 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). There fore , when

a defe ndant challeng es the indictment at a pretria l hear ing, the only inquiry may be into whether the indictment, on its fa ce, met the pleading require ments. State v. Rosenbaum , 910 S.W .2d 934, 948 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (dissenting op. adopted on reh’ g ); Meadows , 170 S.W .3d at 620. A t ri al

court may not deter

mine the sufficie ncy of evidenc e to support or defe at any of the elements of the
char g ed crime alleg ed in the indictment at a pretria l hear ing. Rosenbaum , 910 S.W .2d at 948;
Meadows , 170 S.W .3d at 620; State v. Habern , 945 S.W .2d 225, 226 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.).

Her e, the indictment alleg ed all of the elements of a state-jail felony thef t , t h at is, that

T h e S t a t e ’ s i s s u e i s d i v i d e d i n t o t w o p a r t s : ( 1 ) w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y r e q u i r i n g t h e S t a t e t o 1 p r o v e t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n i n a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g ; a n d ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e a l l e g e d p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n t h a t r e s u l t e d i n a p r o b a t e d s e n t e n c e c o u l d b e u s e d t o e l e v a t e t h e o f f e n s e t o a f

e l o n y
. B e c a u s e w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d b y r e q u i r i n g t h e S t a t e t o p r o v e t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n a t t h e m o t i o n - t o - q u a s h h e a r i n g , w e d o n o t r e a c h t h e S t a t e ’ s s e c o n d
s u b

- i s s u e
.Appellant, with the intent to deprive the owner , unlawfully appropr iated proper ty valued at $50 or
more but less than $500, having two previous convictions for theft. See T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 31.03(e) (2)( A)(i) , (e) (4)( D). There fore , the indictment, on its fa ce, vested the district c ourt with jurisdiction over a felony offe nse. The only question befor e us is whether the prior theft convictions alleg ed we re e lements of the char g ed felony offe nse such that the State was excused from proving
those eleme nts at the pretr ial hear ing f or purpose s of surviving a motion to quash.

I t has been uniformly held that prior theft convictions alleg ed to eleva te a misdemeanor theft

to a fel o n y -l evel offe nse are jurisdictional elements of a new, felony offe nse, rathe r than simply punishment enhanc ements. See Gant v. State , 606 S.W .2d 867, 869 n.2, 871 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Diamond v. State , 530 S.W .2d 586, 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); Gollihar v. State , 56 S.W .3d 606, 608 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2001), pet. dism’d improvidently granted , 84 S.W .3d 674 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2002); Bruns v. State , 22 S.W .3d 540, 542-43 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2000, no pet.); Moore

v. State , 916 S.W .2d 537, 539 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pe t.); Carter v. State , 804 S.W .2d 326,
327 (Tex. App.–Waco 1991, no pet.). As an element of the offe nse, the prior theft conviction could

not be subj ect to sufficie nt proof at the motion-to-quash hear ing. I n other words, it was im proper
for the trial court to delve into t h e s u ff i ci en cy of evidenc e to support the elements of the char g ed felony offe nse at the pretria l hear ing. Meadows , 170 S.W .3d at 620; Habern , 945 S.W .2d at 226. 2

Acc ording ly , the trial court err ed in ruling that it lacke d jurisdiction until that prior conviction was proven. The first sub-issue pre sented by the State is sustained.
CONCLUSION

F o r t h e S t a t e t o p r o v e w h e t h e r a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n w a s f i n a l a t a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g , t h e S t a t e w o u l d b e f o r c e d 2
t o i n t r o d u c e a j u d g m e n t a n d , i f t h e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a p r o b a t e d s e n t e n c e , a r e v o c a t i o n o r d e r
. I n t r o d u c i n g e i t h e r d o c u m e n t w o u l d , i n e s s e n c e , b e d e l v i n g i n t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e c o n v i c t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e e l e m e n t o f t h e e l e v a t e d o f

f e n s e
. T h i s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t m a y n o t r e q u i r e a t a p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g
.Be cause the trial court was prohibited from forc ing the State to prove cer tain elements of the
char g ed offe nse, i.e., the prior theft conviction, at the motion-to-quash hear ing, the trial court’s order

g ranting the motion to quash is reverse d. The proc eeding s are rema nded to the trial c ourt below.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice

Fe bruar y 24, 2010

Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Publish)