### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03-04-00708- CR

Er ne stP anne ll, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAY S COUNTY NO. 74850 , HO NORAB LE HO WARD WARNER, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant’s motion for rehe aring is ove rruled. The opinion a nd judgme nt dated May 18, 2006, are withdrawn.

A jury found appe llant Ernest Pannell g uilty of interf er ing w ith public duties. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 38.15 ( West S upp. 2005). The court a ssessed a ja il term of 180 day s and a $400 fine, but suspende d imposit ion of sentenc e and pla ced a ppellant on community

supervision. Appellant now c ontends that there is a mater ial varia nce be tween the pleadingand the pr oof, and that he and his trial c ounsel wer e not af forde d the mandator

y ten-da y prepa ration per iod. Finding no
reve rsible er

ror, we will affirm the c onviction. On Se pte mbe r 1 8, 20 03 , thre e Ha y s Co un ty de pu tie s arr ive d a t a pp e lla nt’ s h ou se to
e xec ute a wa rr ant f or the arr e st o f a

pp e lla nt’ s so n fo r c ri min a l mis c hie f. Ap pe lla nt’ s c on du c t le d toThe infor mation alleg ed that appe llant harbore d or conc eale d his son, provi d ed h im with a 1 means of a

voiding a

rre st or eff

ectingesca

pe, and w ar n ed him of impending discovery or appre hension. 2 the filing in Nov em b er 2 0 0 3 of a c omplaint and information ac cusing him of hindering appre hension. Se e id . § 38 .0 5. An a tto rn e y wa s im me diate ly

a pp oin te d to re pr e se nt h im. 1 At a pre trial hea

ring on Aug ust 13, 2004, the State announ ce d that it was that day dismiss ing the hindering appre hension information and f iling a new infor

mation acc using a

ppellant
o f i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h p u

b l i c d u t i e s . T h e p r o s e c u t o r

t o l d t h e c o u rt , “ I’ v e t a l k e d

t o t h e d e f e n s e a t t o r n e y. He obviously

has prepa ration time in which he may waive it or not w aive it a s he wa nts or believes is in the best interest of h i s cl ient. At this ti me he’ s indicated he might wa ive the ten da y s. . . . I mean it’s not something like i t ’s a surpr ise bec ause he appar ently had bee n told by

the prior prosec utor that had this file that that’s how the State was g oing t o p ro ce ed .” Appe llant’s counsel
re sp on de d, “ An d w e ’v e pr e pa re d b oth wa y s, Yo ur Ho no r, so we are re a dy .” To be c e rt a in of thi s, the trial cour

t then asked c ounsel if he wa s rea dy to go to tria l on the new infor mation. Counsel
a s s u r e d t h e c o u rtt h a th e w a s . T h e n e w i n f o r m a t i o n w a s f

i l e d l a t e r t h a td ay an d

t r i a l b e g ant h r e e d a ys later. An

a pp oin te d d e fe ns e a tto rn e y is e nti tle d to a

te n-d ay pr e pa ratio n p e ri od , b ut t

his prepa ration time may

be wa ived by

counsel with the c onsent of the de fenda nt in writing or on the
rec ord in open c ourt. Tex. Code Crim. Proc
. Ann. art. 1.051(e) (West 2005)
. I n this c ause, it is clear that counsel’s state ments to the court quoted a bove we re intende d as a w aiver of the ten- day prepa ration per iod on the new infor mation. Although the rec ord does not reflec t appellant’s pe rsonal
c on se nt t o th e wa ive r, we are satis fi e d th a t th is p ro c e dura l de fe c t di d n ot pr e jud ic e a su

bs tanti a l r ig ht.3

See Te x. R. A

pp . P. 44 .2 (b ); an d s e e Cai n v . S tat e , 947 S.W .2d 262, 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Counsel had bee n appointed ele ven months ear lier and it is obvious from the trial re cord that he was familiar with the f

acts of the case . Although the new infor mation was not on file whe n the waive r was made , the re cord r efle cts that counsel h ad d iscussed the ne w information with the prose cutor and his statements to the cour t refle ct that he wa s awa

re of the new a lleg ations. Counsel stated for the re cord that he was pr epar ed for trial on the newinformation and appellant does not arg ue to the contra ry . Under the circumstances, we conclude t hat no harm resulted from the tria l court’s fa ilure to o bta in a

wa ive r o f t

he te n- da y pr e pa ratio n ti me fu lly

c omp lyingwi th t

he re qu ir e me nts of

art ic le 1.051(e) . Point of error two is ove rruled.

The infor mation alleg ed that appellant interfe red with a deputy “by arguing . . . a nd failing to step aside” wh i l e t h e deputy “wa s perf

orming a duty

or exercising authority

imposed or g rante d by

law; to-wit: investigating a Criminal Mischief case.” Appellant asse rts that there is a fata l varia nce be tween the alleg ation that the deputy was investigating a cr iminal mis chief case and the evidenc e that the de puty

was ser ving a n arr est war

rant for criminal mischief. Only a mater ial varia

nce be tween the alleg ations in the cha rg ing instrument a

nd the proof will rende r t he evidence insufficient t o sustain a convic tion. Go lli ha r v . S tat e , 46 S.W .3d 243, 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Alleg ations g iving rise to immater ial varia nces may be disreg arde d. Id
. A va ri an ce i s m at er i al i f, as wr i t t en , t h e in fo rm at i o nd i d n o ti n fo rm t h e d ef

en d an to f t h e c h ar ge ag ainst him sufficiently

to allow him to prepare an ade quate de fense , o r if prosec ution under the de fi c ie nt i nf

or ma tio n w ou ld s ub

je c t the de fe nd ant to the ri sk of be ingpr os e c ute d late r f

or the same offe nse. Id
.4 An arr est may

occur in the course of an inve stigation. Thus, we do not believe that there nece ssarily

is a varia nce be tween the alleg ation that the deputy was investig ating a cr iminal mischief ca se and the proof that he was attempting to serve an ar rest wa rra nt for cr iminal mis chief

. Appellant ar g ues that the theory of the case alleg ed in the information “ca n be viewe d as a sur

prise,” but this arg ument car

ries little weig ht in light of counse l’s statement to the cour t that he was prepa

red to try the ca se “both wa

y s,” that is, under e ither the o l d or the ne w information. Unde r the circ umstances, the r ecor d does not support the conclusion that the alleg ed varia nce denied a

ppellant an ade quate oppor

tunity to prepa re a defe nse. We also find no basis for a ppellant’s asse rtion that “the St ate c ould easily make a n attempt to prosecute the appe llant for the same cr ime under diff ere nt theories.” Be cause the entire
rec ord, and not just the information, may be used to support a p ri o r co nviction claim, we a re not persua ded that the alleg ed variance will enable the S tate to prosec ute appellant a sec ond time for the same off ense w ithin the meaning of the Double J eopar dy Clause. Id
. at 2 5 8 (c i t i n g United States v. Apodaca , 843 F.2d 421, 430 n.3 ( 10th Cir. 1988)). Point of error one is overr

uled. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 30, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh