## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 0007 3- CR No. 02 -23- 00074

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 158 th District Court 1 Denton County, Texas Trial Court N os . F22

- 3554

- 158, F22

- 3555

- 158
Before Kerr, Bassel, and Walker, JJ. M emoran dum Opinion by Justice Bassel

1 Th e Honorable Steve Burgess is the presiding jud ge of the 15 8 th Dist rict Court. The Hon ora ble Coby Waddill, sitt ing by assignment, signed the judgments being appealed. 

### W ILLIAM 

### B LAIR 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINIO N
I. Int rodu ction Appellant William Blair appe als his two man slaughter convictions for which he

was sente nced to ten years ’ confi n e ment to be served conc urrently

. In a si n gle issue, Blair argues that County Criminal Court No. 5 lacked subject

- mat ter juris diction over his manslaughter cases beca use that court ’ s legislative grant of felony jurisdicti o n is
sp ecific to intoxication o ffen s es list ed in Texas Penal Code Chapter 49 and because
the tried offenses a re not Chapter 49 offenses. The c rux of Blair ’ s argument rests on clerical error s in the judgment s : th e incorrec t co urt (County C riminal Court N o. 5) is
liste d in both the caption and after the judge ’ s sig nature , and a line following the
document ’ s title of “ Judgment of Convictio n by Jury ” s tat es, “ County Criminal Court
#5

– sitt ing as a felon y co urt. ” 2 The record, however, reflects that the acting presiding judge of the E ighth Adm inistrative Judicial Regi on of Texas a ssigne d the
Honorable Coby W addill, Judge of County Criminal Court N o. 5 of Denton County,

to the 158 t h Di st rict Court to presid e ov e r the underlying felony cases. Because th e 158t h Dist rict Court has jurisdiction to hear felony case s involvi ng manslaughter and
because Blair ’ s manslaughter cases were assigned to be heard by Judge Waddill in that

court , Blair ’ s ju risdi ction argument has no merit

. B ut because the judgments c ont ain

2 W e have altered the font from the lar ge and small cap it al letters used in the judgments

.3 clerical errors, we modify the judgment s to correct the clerical errors and affirm the judgments as modified. II. Background 3
One afternoon i n April 20 21, Blair crashed his v e h icle into two pedestrians
who were attending to a disabled veh icle on the s houlder of I

- 35

. Both pedes trians
d i ed fro m the injuries that they s u sta ined.
T h e grand j ury initially indicted Blair for intoxi c ation man sla ughter for killing the two pedestrians. The two cases were filed in the 158th Distri ct Court, but the judge of th at co urt ordered the cases to be assigned to County Crimina l Court N o. 5

o f D enton County, “ sub je c t to [that court ’ s] approva l

. ” The presidin g judge of County Crimina l Court N o. 5

— the Hono rable Coby Wad dill

— acknowledged the assignment s . The following year, the grand jury indicted Blair i n two n ew cases

— each setting
forth one count o f intoxication man slaughter an d one count of mans laughter

. 4 Three days after the new indictments were filed in the 158th District Court, the acting presiding judge of the Eig h th Admi nistrative Judicial Reg ion o f Texa s signed an order

3 Because Blair does not challenge the suffic iency of the ev idenc e, we set for th
o nl y a brief factual back ground

.

4 Because the S t ate ultimately proceeded solely on the ne w indictments, a fter the trial, the State filed in eac h case a motion to dismiss the initial indictments that so lely charged intox ication manslaughter , and the trial c our t granted the motions.4 assigning Judge W addill to the 1 58th District Court to preside over Bl air ’ s c as es . The pertinent p ort ion of the order is as follows : THE STAT E OF T E XAS
8 th ADM I NISTRATIVE JUDICIAL REGION
ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE
Purs uant to S e ctio n 74.056, T e xas G o vernment Code, the undersigned Presiding Judge assign s the Honorable Co by Waddill, Judge of County Criminal Court No. 5 of Denton County, Texas to t he
158 th D ISTRICT C OURT , D ENTON C O UNTY , T EXAS . The j udge is assigned to p re side in Cause Number F22

- 3554

- 158, styled State of Texas v. William Blair f rom this date until the undersigned Pres iding Judge has te rmin ated this ass ignment in writing. In add i tion, whenever the assigned judge is present in the county of assignment for a hearing in this cause , the judge is also assigned and empowered to hear at that time any other matters that are presented for hearing in other cases.
A simil a r order was ren dered in the companion case.
When the State indicated that it intended to aba ndon the intoxication

manslaughter count s and proceed solely on the man sla ughter count s in each case , Blair filed a plea to the jurisdiction base d on his premis e that th e cases ha d been
transferred to County Criminal Court No. 5

— rather than that the judge of that court
had been assigned to sit in the 1 58th District Court to preside over the cases

— and
argu ed that alth ough County Criminal Court No. 5 has concurrent jurisdiction wit h the Denton County distric t courts over in to xication offense s , because manslau ghter is

n ot an intoxication offense , County Criminal Court No. 5 had no jurisdiction over5 these offenses. At the heari ng on Blair ’ s p lea to the jurisdi ction, the trial court noted
that “ t he pre siding [j ] ud ge of the administrative region [has authority] t o assign judges
in the administrative region to preside over cases. ” T he refore, the trial court signed
an order in each case den ying Bla ir ’ s plea to the jurisdiction

. A fter a three

- day trial , a jury found Blair guilt y of manslaughter in both cases . The jury assessed punishment in each case at ten years ’ confine ment, and the trial

court sentenced Blair in acc ordance w it h the jury ’ s recommendation and ordered the

sentences to run concurrently. Blair filed a motion for new trial rai sing his jurisdiction

ar gum ent , and the mo tion was overruled by operation o f law. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8(a), (c). Blair then perfected this appeal.
II I. The Record Shows Cases Were Assigned to the District Co urt with Jurisdiction ove r the Felony Offenses at Issue
In his so le issue , Blair raises the same jurisdiction challenge that he raised in the
trial court

— that the trial court , wh i ch he contends was County Criminal Court No. 5, lacked subject

- matter jurisd iction because its legislative grant of felony jurisdiction is
li m ited to Cha pter 49 intoxicat ion offen ses and because the tried offense s a re not Chapter 49 offenses. As mentioned in the introduction section , Blair ’ s argument
i gnores th e o rder in the record assigning the judge of County C ri minal Court No. 5 to
the 158th District C ourt to p reside over th es e case s ; thus , despite the wording in the judgme nts , County C r i minal Court No. 5 did not sit as a felony court for these cases

.6 A. Applica ble Law County Criminal Court No. 5 o f Denton is a st atutory county court
. Tex.
G ov ’ t Code A nn. § 25. 0631(a)(7) . T he county criminal courts of Denton County have felony jurisdic t ion concurrent with the district court s only over matters involving
intoxica tion arising by a true bill of indi ctment by a grand jury charging one or more
off enses under Texas Penal C o de Chapter 49

. Id. § 25.0634 ( a). Intoxication

man slaughter is a C hapt e r 49 offense. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.08. The Government Code gives broad powe r to the presiding judge of an
administrative region to a ssign judg es to vari ous courts : “ A p residing judge from time

to time shall assign the judges of the administrative r e gion to hold special or regular terms of court in any county of the administ rative region to try cases and dispose of
accumulated business. ” 5 Tex. Gov ’ t Code Ann. § 7 4.056(a) ; see als o id. § 74.0 41(2)

5 T he State notes in a footnote in its brief,
The Texa s Con stitution orders the legislature to make provisions for court to be held whe n a d istrict judg e is absent, disabled, or disqualified; ho wever, th e Texas C on stit ution does no t s ugges t “that the legislat ur e lacks authority to enact legi slation permitting elig ible and qualifie d judges to be assigned to district courts even when the el ected judge of the dis trict court is not absent, d isabled, or disqua lified. ” L azarine v. State , No . 01

- 19

- 00 982

- CR, . . . 2 02 1 WL 5702182[, at * 4 ] (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] D ec. 2, 20 21, pet. ref ’d

) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Wig gins v. State , 622 S.W.3d 556, 560 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 4th Dist.] 2 021, pet. r ef ’d); Smith v. S tat e , No. 01

- 19

- 00442

- CR, .

. . 2020 WL 6731656[, at * 6] (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dis t. ] Nov. 17, 2020, p et. ref ’d) ( mem. op., not designated for publication). The
r ecord is silent regarding the reasons [that ] Judge Wad dill was assigned to these cases. Pr esu m ably the cases may have be en assigned because7 (defining “ presiding judge ” as the presiding judge of an administrative region). A
statutory county court judge is included in th e list of judges who may be assigned by the presiding judge of the administrative region in which t he as sign ed judge resides

. Id. § 74.054 (a)(1)

. A judge assigned under the prov i sions of Chapter 74 (the Court Administration Act) “ has all the powers of th e judge of the court t o which he is assigned. ” I d. § 74.059 (a).
B. A n alysis
Rel ying on Governmen t Code Se ction 25.0634(a), Blair argues that C ounty Criminal Court No. 5 may not have its jurisdiction extended beyond legislative authorization by either a transfer order or an order of assignment

. Blair acknowledge s that the original tr ansfer order from the 158th District Court to County Criminal
Court No. 5 was p roperly executed but then contends that the case was ass igned to
that court again after it was reindicted. Th e record does not bear out this position

. As set for th above, the a ssignment made after the cases were reindic t ed was

not a n assi gnment or transfer to a different cou rt but rather an assignment of a county

c riminal court judge to sit in the district court in which the reindicted cases were filed

. The Beaumont C ourt of A p peals dealt with a simil ar scenario and , using a substantially similar prio r version of Section 74.054, explained the di stinction between

Judge Waddill presi ded over the or iginally indicted cases. [Record references omitted.]8 a transfer of a case to another court and an assignment of a judge to a different bench and how a county court a t law judg e may be properly a ssigned to sit in a distric t court : U nd e r our reading of the statute , a presiding judge of a judicial administrative region may appoint a county court at law judge to sit for a district judge in a district [-] court case in the same co un ty. See Tex [

. ] Animal Health Comm ’n v. Garza , 980 S.W.2d 776, 777 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, no writ) ( [c] ounty court at law judge was a uthorized to preside over a case in district court and sign the judgment even though the case was outside his court ’s subject [-] mat ter juris diction [] ).

. . . Here, [the] case wa s n ot transferred from district court to the county court at law. Instead, the presiding judge of the region assigned Judge Taylor, the county court at law judge, to sit in place of Judge Zbra ne k on the distri ct court. Pursuant to Tex [as] Gov [ernment] Code [Section ] 74. 054(a), [ ] (b)

. . . , “[r]egular statutory county court judges may be assigned by a presiding judge to hear a matter in district court within their own county.” Camacho v. Sama ni ego , 831 S.W.2d 804, 810

– [] 11 (T ex. 1992)

. As not ed in Camacho , the leg islature has provided that “within a county, district and statutory county court judg es may exchange benches, sign a judgment or order in another court without transferring the case, a nd be subject to assignment of a ny trial or procee ding by the local admi nistrativ e judge

. . . .” Id. at 811; see Tex. Gov ’t Code Ann. § 74.094

. . . . Mo reover, as also pointed out in Camacho , “[t]wo years later, a provision that these rules did not a ut horize a judge to act in a case over whi ch his ow n cou rt lacked jurisdiction was repealed.” See Camacho , 831 S.W.2d at 811. Like the San Antonio [C] ourt o f [A] ppeals in Tex [

. ] Animal Health Comm ’n , 980 S.W.2d at 777, we find no error in the exchange of j udges herein. A county court at law jud ge under a proper assi gnment may sit for a district judge in a district court in the same county.
In re Nash , 13 S. W.3d 894, 897

– 98 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2000, orig. proceeding ).
We conclude that the record here re flects the same type of assignment under Section s
7 4.054(a) and 74.056(a)

. Blair, however challeng es the propriety of the assignment , contend ing “ that [ altho ugh ] the case[ s were] moved does not mean the case[s were ] moved9 permissibly. ” But the crux of th is argument remains Blair ’ s fa ulty prem ise that the

cases were tra nsfe rr ed between c ourts that did not have equal jurisdiction. Again,
what occurred below was not a transfer of cases from one court to another but rather an assignment of a county criminal co ur t jud ge t o sit in the district court

. Blair offers no argument or authority challenging the propriety of the as signment order it self. To summarize, a s a result of the assignment o rder from the actin g presiding judge of the Eighth Administrative Judici al Region of T e xas, the cases at issue w ere tried in the 158th District Court, which has jurisdiction over felony offense s such a s

man slaughter

. 6 Also as a result of th at assign ment, Judge Waddill “ ha [ d] all the powers of the judge of the court t o which h e [was] a ssigned. ” See Tex. Gov ’ t Code Ann. § 74.059 (a). And a s aptly noted in a footnote in the State ’s brief,
E ven if Judge Waddill [had ] presided over these cases in his own courtroom [,] that does not change tha t he was acting on assignment to the 15 8t h District Court because more than one judge can try cases simultaneously in the same district court, each in a di fferen t courtro om. See Ex parte Holmes , 754 S.W.2d 676, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Herrod v. State , 650 S.W.2d 814, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 98 3); Zam ora v. State , 508 S.W.2d 819, 8 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Ex parte Dharmagunaratne , 950 S.W.2d 140, 142 (Te x. App .— Fort Wo rth 1997, pet. ref’d) [(op. on reh’ g)] ; Rogers v. State , 846 S.W.2d 883, 886 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 1993,
n o writ ).
Because th e cases were tried in the district court, which had felony jurisdiction
over the man slaughter c harge s , we hold that the judg ments are not void as Blair
contends

. T o the extent that the judgments reflect that the cases were tried in County

6 N owher e in his brief does Blair argue that the 158th Distric t Court l acked juris diction to hear th ese felony cases.10 Crim inal Court N o. 5 and that County Criminal Court No. 5 was “ sitting as a felony
court, ” as well as that “ County Criminal Court #5 ” is lis ted after Judge Waddill ’ s signature , we modify the judgments to correct those clerical errors as s et forth in
more detai l be low

. Se e Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (holding that appellate courts are empowered to reform judgments) ; Barner v. State , No. 02

- 2 2

- 00043

- CR, 2023 WL 164088, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Jan. 12, 2023, no pet.) (mem . op., n ot design at ed for publication) ( stating that appellate courts have
the power to corr ect cler ical erro r s and modify the trial court’s judgment “to make the record speak the truth ” when they have the necessary in f ormation to do so )

. W e overrule Blair ’ s s ole issue.
IV
. Conclusion
Havi ng overruled Blair ’ s sole i s sue but having determined that ther e are clerical

err ors in the trial court ’ s judgments,

• w e modify the first page of the judgmen t s in ca use numbe rs F22

- 3554

- 158
and F22

- 3555

- 158 as follows: (1) we delete “ In T h e County Criminal Court
Number 5 Denton Cou n ty , Texas , ” in the caption s a nd replace it with “ In
Th e 158 th District Court Dento n County , Texas ” ; (2) we del ete the phrase s

“ County C riminal Court #5

- S itting as a Felony Court ” that follow the title
of “ Jud gme nt of Conviction by Jury ” ; and (3) we add “ Sitt ing by Assignment ” af ter “ J udge Presiding : Hon

. Coby Waddill ” ; a nd11 • we modi fy the last page of the judgments under t he judge ’ s signature to delete “ Cou nty Cr iminal Court #5 ” and repl ace t hat phrase with “ Si tti ng by Assignment. ” As modified, we affirm the trial court ’ s judg me nt s. /s/ Dabney Bassel Dabney Bassel Justice
Do Not Publish Tex. R. A pp . P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : January 11 , 2024