1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Ju stice (Ret.), Sevent h Court of Appeals, s itting by

assignment . Tex. Gov ’t Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). NO. 07-02-0439 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E SEPTE MBE R 3, 2003

______________________________ SHANON LEE THOMA S, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNT Y COURT OF ARMSTRONG COUNT Y; NO. 2538; HON ORABLE HUGH RE ED, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. 1 In presenting one question of law f or our decision, appellant Shanon Lee Thom as contends his conviction of the Class C M isdemeanor off e nse of speeding m ust be reversed. His com plaint and c hallenge are b ased up on the S tate’s failure to file a form al2

com plaint bef

ore tria l de novo in the Co unty C ourt of Arm strong County. D isagreeing that reversal is required, we affirm the judgm ent of the trial court. The und erly ing f

acts an d th e pr

oce dur al his tory of this case are undisputed. On Decem ber

24, 2001, appellant was driving on a public highway in Arms trong County w hen he was s topped by a Departm ent of P ublic Safe ty Tro oper. As a result of t he stop, the trooper issued a citation, charging that appellant wasdriving 95 miles per hour in an area with aposted speed lim it of 70 m iles per hour

. In the jus tice c ourt, appel lant appeared by counsel, w ho filed a written nolo conten dere plea. Contem poraneously with the plea, counsel filed an appeal bond seeking appeal to the Arm strong County Cou rt. Whe n the ca se wascalled for trial in the county court, appellant unsuccessfully sought dism issal of the prosecution on the basis that the State had never filed a com plain t or info rm atio n m eet ing t he r equ irem ents of

art icle 45.019 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (the C ode). At trial, the only testim ony produced was that of the trooper. A

t the conclusion of the bench trial, appellantwasassessed a fine of $200 and court cost s. In suppo rt of his sole point of error, appellant initial ly cites article 27.14(d) of th e C ode. That article provides that for a m isdemeanor off ense for w hich the m axim um punishment

is a fine, written noti ce of an offense “serves as a com plaint to which the defendant

ma y plead ‘guilty,’ ‘not guilty,’ or ‘ nolo contende re .’” However, the article goes on to provide that if the defendant pleads not guilty, “a compl aint shall be filed that3

co nf or ms to the requirem ents of Chapter 45 of this Code, and that com plaint serves as an original com plaint.” Tex. Code Crim . Proc. Ann . art. 27.14 (d) (Ver non Pa m ph. 2003 ). Appellant argues that because of his not guilty plea in the county court, the requirement of a com plaint meeting the requirements of Chapter 45 becam e operative. In responding, the State concedes that thecounty court erred in proceeding t o trial without a com plaint meeting Chapter 45 requ irements, but it conte nds the error was harmless In sup por

t of his pro pos ition tha t re ver sal i s req uired, ap pell ant cites two cases, namely, State v. Campbell , 820 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.App.–A ustin 1991, pet. ref’d), and State v. Shaw, 822 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.App.–A ustin 1992, no pe t.). That reli ance requi res a disc uss ion of the tw

o cases. In eac h case, the S tate was appealing a dismissal by the county court at law

of a speeding charge upon which the appellant had been found guilty in the jus tice court. In Campbell, the county court at law had reversed an d dismissed the cause because of perceived deficiencies in the justice court’s judgm ent. In reversing that dism iss al, the appellate court held that w hen Cam pbell appealed the justice cou rt judgm ent against hi m, he “stood before the count y court at law as if the prosecution began in t ha t court, unaffe cted by

wha t m ight havehappene d in the j ustice court.” Th us, thejus tice cour t judgm entwas a nullity and any deficiencies in that judgm ent did notma tter. 820 S.W.2d at 45. In Shaw , the defendant m oved for dism issal of the de novo trial in the co unty court atlaw on the basis tha t no com plain t m eeting the requisites of the progenitor of present2 Tex. Code C rim. Proc. Ann. art. 44. 01(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 1977). 3 But see , Tex . Att

y Gen.O p. JM -869 (198 8).

4 Chapter 45 of the C ode 2 had been filed in the justice cou rt at the time the defendant pled nolo conten dere in that court. The appel late court reversed the di sm issa l because “appellee (the defendant) pleaded no contest, the requirement that a form al complaint was never triggered . . .” 822 S.W.2d at 809. 3 Thus, the Shaw court’s rel evant h olding here wasthatthe procedure co ncerning t he nece ssity fo r a com plaint in the j ustice court carried forward to thetria l de novo in the co unty court. N either of t hese de cisions su pport appellant’s argument

and indeed m ilitate against it. We agree with the interpretation given the stat ute by the Aus tin court. By filing his nolo contende re plea, appellant obviated the necessity for the filing of a formal com plaint by the State . Theref

ore, und er this record, the re is no reversible error. Accordingly, the j udgme nt of the trial court is affirmed. John T. Boyd Senior Justi ce Do not publish.