## NO. 12-09-00104-CR
IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

§ APP

EAL FRO

M T HE EX P ART E: § CO UN TY CO UR T AT

LAW BEN NI E EARL RO

BERT § HEN DE RSO N C OU NTY, TE XAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION B e nn ie Ea

rl Rob e rt a pp e a ls f ro m a tr ia l c ourt

or de r d e nyingre lie f o n h is a pp lic a tio n for

wr it of ha be a s c or pu s. Pr oc e e din g pr o s e , App e lla nt a rgue s in thr e e iss ue s th a t hi s c on vic tio n f or a ssa ult sh ou ld b e se t a sid e be c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n a

nd be c a us e th ere is no evid e nc e to
su pp or t hi s c on vic tio n. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND Ap pe lla nt p le a de d n o c on te st t o a c ha rg e of a ssa

ult wi th the a g re e me nt t

hat th e State wo uld

rec ommend that he be sentence d to seventy -five da y s in jail. The trial court a cce pted his plea, found him guilty , and followe d the S tate’s sentencing rec ommendation. Severa l months later, A ppellant fi le d a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s c ha lle ng in g his c on vic tio n. I n h is w ri t, A pp e lla nt a rgue d th a t hi s
c on vic tio n s ho uld be ov e rt ur ne d be c a us e he wa s nev e r ar

ra ig ne d, arr e ste d, or fi ng e rp ri nte d f or thi s offe nse. The tr ial court he ld a hea ring and denie d relief

. This appea l followed.

S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW Appea ls from the denia l of relief soug ht in mis demea

nor postconvict i o n wr i t s of habe as2

corpus a re pr operly

direc ted to the cour

ts of ap peals. See Ex parte Jordan , 659 S.W .2d 827, 828 ( T e x. C r i m
. A p p . 1 98 3) ; Dahe sh v . St ate , 51 S.W .3d 300, 302 (Tex. App.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 20 00 , pe t. r e f’ d) ; se e als o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 31 (g overning appea ls from habeas c orpus proc eeding s). When review ing a

trial court’ s decision to g rant or deny relief on a writ of habe as cor pus, we aff ord almost total defe renc e to a tria l court’s fa ctual finding s, espec ially when th o s e fi ndings a

re based upon cre dibilit y and deme anor. Ex p arte Whit e , 160 S.W .3d 46, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We affor d the same a

mount of defe renc e to the trial c ourt’s rulings on “a pplications of law to fa ct questions” if the re solution of those ulti mate questions turns on an e valuation of credibil ity and demea nor. See Ex p arte

Ma rti n , 6 S.W. 3d

52 4, 52 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ). We r e vie w w ho lly leg al conclusions de novo. See Ex parte Peterson , 117 S.W .3d 804, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), overruled in part on other grounds , Ex p arte Le wis , 219 S.W .3d 335, 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Guz man v. Sta te , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

J URI S DI CT I ON I n his first and sec ond issues, Appellant ar g ues that his conviction is void beca use he w as “neve r ar rested, arr aig ned or immediately acc used and taken in front of a mag istrate and a

rra igne d for bond a

nd char g ed with the off

ense of Assault Bodily

I njury Family Violence .” This c ase beg an when the police we re c alled af ter Appe llant assaulted his forme r g irlfriend on or about Septembe r 3, 2007. Ap p el l an t had lef t the scene , and the police conducte d an investigation. An investigator swore out a complaint on October 5, 2007, and the county attorney fi le d a n in fo rm a tio n c ha

rg ingAp pe lla

nt w itha ssa

ult ing a fa mil y me mbe r. I t is no t c le ar w he n o r i f Appellant wa s formally

arr ested o n t h i s char g e. F rom his brief a nd pleading s, it appear s that Appellant wa s in jail on another cha rg e whe n he wa s informed of this cha rg e. The c entra l thrust of Appellant ’s ar gu m ent is that the trial cour t did not have jurisdiction be c a u s e h e h a d

n o tb e e nf

o r m a l l y ar r e s t e d o r ar r a i g n e d

. H o w e v e r , a l l t h a ti s r e qu i r e d t o ve st jurisdiction in a trial court in a c riminal case is the filing of an accusatory instrument, either a

n indictment or an infor

mation. See T EX
. C O N ST . a rt . V , § 12 (b ); s e e also T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 21.20 (Ve rnon 2009) (def ining an information as “a written statement filed a nd prese nted in behalf of the S tate by the di strict or county attorney , char g ing the defe ndant with an off ense w hich3

m ay b y l aw b e s o p r o se c ute d[]” ); Teal v . St ate , 230 S.W .3d 172, 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Misdemeanor

prosec utions may

be commenc ed in the county court by information filed by

the county attorney . T EX
. C O N ST . art. V, § 17. Some defe cts in the char g ing instrument c an be se rious enoug h to deprive a trial court of jurisdiction. See Duron v . St ate , 9 5 6 S. W. 2 d

5 4 7 , 5 5 0

- 5 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1997). Th e inf or ma tio n f ile d in thi s c a se a lle g e s an o ff e ns e , a nd Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot a

rgue that it

is insufficient or de fec tive. There fore , beca use the prope r ac cusatory instrument h ad b een filed, the trial court h ad j u ri s diction of this case w hen it hear d Appellant’s plea . Turning to Appellant’s sp e c i f i c ar g u m e n t s , i td o e s a

p p e ar t h a tA p p e l l an tw a s n o tf o r m a l l y ar r a i g n e d

. T h i s i s s o b e c a us e Ap pe lla nt f or ma lly wa ive d a

rr a ig nme nt b y

wa y of a wr itt e n d oc ume nt s ig ned by hi m and his attorney

. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 26.011 (V ernon 2009)

. Appellant has c ited no authority to su p p o rt his contention that a per son must be arre sted befor e he can be convicted. Howeve r, Appellant admits that he wa s in custody when he pleade d no contest, and a

n arr est is nothing more than a se izure of a pe rson. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art . 1 5. 22 ; Ca li

f o rni a v . Ho dari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 627, 111 S. C t. 1547, 1551, 113 L . Ed. 2d 690 (1 99 1) ; see also Rag

an v . St ate , 642 S.W .2d 489, 491, n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (“I t is doubtful that Texas law re cog nizes such a thing a s being place d under formal arrest.”)

. There fore , though w e do ub t it is r e qu ir e d, Ap pe lla

nt w a s und e r “ arr est ” whe n he wa s ta ke n b e fo re the tr ia l c ourt

fo r h is plea. Finally , the requirement im posed by article s 14.06, 15.16, and 15.17 of the code of criminal pr oc e dure that an a

rr e ste d p e rs on

be take n b e fo re a magi strate a ft e r b e ingarr e ste d is no t a prer equisite to a trial cour t’s later ha

ving jur isdiction of the case
. I nstead, its purpose is to ensure that an a c c us e d p e rs on

is pr omp tly and fu lly

inf or me d o f t he a c c us a tio n a g a ins t hi m and to c omp ly with the Fourth Amendment requir ement that a pr obable c ause de termination be made for

war rantless a rre sts. See Sorto v

. St ate , 173 S.W .3d 469, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The fa ilure to t a ke a p e r s o n p r o mp t l y b e f o r e a m a g i s t r a t e m ay r e s u l t i n t h e e xc l u s i o n o f a c o n f e s s i o n t h a t is

causa lly connec ted to that failure , see Boy d v . St ate , 811 S.W .2d 105, 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), but it has no impact on a trial cour t’s jurisdiction. The trial c ourt proper ly

reje cted Appe lla n t ’s jurisdictional arguments. The trial c ourt’sA t t h e he a rin g o n his w rit ap p lica tio n , A p p e llan t t e stif ie d tha t he a g re e d w ith “th e p le a a hu n d re d p e rc e n t,” 1

a n d tha t he d id no t “ha v e a p ro b le m w ith the p le a b a rg a in.” 4 jurisdiction depended on w hether the appr opriate a ccusatory instrument had bee n filed, not on wh e the r Ap pe lla

nt wa s arr e ste d, fi ng e rp ri nte d, or take n be fo re a ma g istra te . The appr op ri a te instrument ha d been filed, and so the trial court ha d jurisdiction. W e over rule Appe llant’s first and

se c on d is su e s.

S U FF I C I ENC Y OF THE E VI DE NCE I n h is thir d is su e , App e lla nt argue s that the re is no e vid e nc e to s up po rt his c on vic tio n. Th is is contradicte d by

the re cord. The judgme nt refle cts that Appellant agr eed to stipulate to evidence

. Th e re c or d c on ta ins State ’s e xhibi t 1, wh ic h is an o ff e ns e re po rt . T he of

fe ns e re po rt

pr ov ides a fac tual b as i s to support Appellant’s plea . Even so, a tr ial court may find a pe rson g uilty

in a misdemeanor pr ocee ding upo n h i s plea of guilty or no conte st without evidence at all. See T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 27.14 (Vernon 2006) (“A plea of ‘g uilty ’ or a plea of ‘nolo contende re’ in a mi sdeme an o r

c a s e ma y b e ma d e e it

h e r b y th e d e f e n d an t o r h is c o u n s e l i no p e nc o u rt; in s u ch

case , the def

endant or h i s counsel may

waive a jury , and the punishment may be asse ssed by

the

c ourt e ith e r u po n o r w ith ou t e vid e nc e , at th e dis c re tio n of the c ourt .” ). Ap pe lla

nt a c kn ow le dg e d in his wr itt e n p le a

a g re e me nt t

hat he un de rs too d th is. 1 There fore , the trial cour

t properly denied relief

. Either the stipulated evidenc e or Appe llant’s ple a of no c on te st wa s su ff

ic ie nt to pr ov ide a

fa c tua l ba sis to s up po rt

the c on vic tio n. We o ve rr ule Appellant’s third issue.

D I S P OS I T I ON Havingoverr

uled Appellant’ s three issues, w e af fi rm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. 

### S AM GRI FF I T H J ustice Opinion delivere d Aug ust 19, 2009. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J. (DO N OT PUBL I SH)