AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 31, 2014.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 1 3 - 0 0 615 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00616 - CR ROBERT IVES , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal Distri ct Court No. 6 Dall as County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 12 - 34069 - X, F12 - 19082 - X 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Myers, and Lewis Opinion b y Justice Lang

- Miers A jury convicted Robert Ives of burglary of a habitation and unauthorized use of a motor vehic le (UUMV) . The jury found one enhancement paragraph true and assessed punishment at twenty
- five years’ imprisonment on the burglary
. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § § 12.42(b), 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011 ). The jury assessed punishment at two years’ confinement in a s tate jail on the UUMV. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . , §§ 12.35(a), 31.07(a) (West 2011 ). In two issues, appellant contends the sentence imposed in the burglary case violates the United States Constitution and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear both cases and render judgment. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.- 2
- In his first issue, appellant contends the twenty

- five

- year sentence imposed in the burglary case is grossly disproportionate to the offense, in violation of the Eight Amendment to th e United States Constitution. See U.S. CONST . amend. VIII. Appellant asserts that because he had “turned his life over to God and began ministering to others,” he should not have received a twenty
- five

- year prison term. The State responds that appellant failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and alternatively, the jury had discretion to impose any sentence within the punishment range. Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in his motion for new t rial. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State , 135 S.W.3d at 723
. Thus, appellant has not preserved this issue for appellate review. Moreover, punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for an offense is n either excessive n or uncon stitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State , 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1997, pet. ref’d); see also Jackson v. State , 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Appellant’s second

- degree burglary offense was enhanced by a prior felony convi ction , making it punishable as a first

degree felony. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § § 12.42(b), 30.02(a)(1). The punishment range for a first

- degree felony is imprisonment for five to ninety

- nine years or life and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. Se e T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.3 2. Appellant’s twenty
- five

- year sentence is within the statutory punishment range. We overrule appellant’s first issue. In his second issue, appellant contends the Criminal District Court No. 6 lacked jurisdiction over the tw o cases because they were not properly transferred to the court’s docket. Appellant asserts the burglary indictment was returned in the 292nd Judicial District Court and the UUMV indictment was returned in Criminal District Court No. 1. Appellant contend s that b ecause the records do not contain order s transferring the cases to Criminal District Court No. 6- 3
- where the cases were heard and the judgment s were rendered, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case s . The State responds that Criminal District Court No. 6 always had jurisdiction over the case s and no transfer orders were necessary. A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires into offenses liable to indictment and hears testimony before voting on whether to induct an accused. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art s . 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 competent jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to hear the case. See Hultin v. State , 171 Tex. Crim. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961). In counties having two or more district courts, th e judges of the court may adopt rules governing the filing, numbering, and assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the courts’ work they consider necessary or desirable to conduct the business of the courts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 24.30 4 (West 2004); see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 74.093 (West 2013) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases). Thus, a specific district court may impanel a gran d jury, but it does not necessarily follow that all cases returned by th e grand jury are assigned to th e impaneling court. See Bourque v. State , 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d). While the record shows the grand jury that returned t he burglary indictment was presided over by the 292nd Judicial District Court, and the grand jury that returned the UUMV indictment was presided over by Criminal District Court No. 1, the cases were thereafter filed in the Criminal District Court No. 6. W e take judicial notice that all three of these courts are located in- 4
- Dallas County. Nothing in the record shows the cases were ever filed in or appeared on the trial docket s of the 292nd Judicial District Court or Criminal District Court No. 1. Because t he Criminal District Court No. 6 had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s cases and render the judgments, we overrule his second issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgment s .

Do Not Publish T E X . R. A PP . P. 47 130615F.U05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE- 5
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
ROBERT IVES , Appellant No. 05

- 13

- 00615

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12

- 34069

- X). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers, Justices Myers and Lewis participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered March 31, 2014.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE- 6
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
ROBERT IVES , Appellant No. 05

- 13

- 00616

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 of Dallas Coun ty, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12

- 19082

- X). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang

- Miers, Justices Myers and Lewis participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered March 31, 2014.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE