### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 84 -C R

______________________________ L EE CHARL ES HAMI L TON, Appe llant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 102nd Judi cial District Court

Bow ie County , Texas Trial Court No. 06-F -0088-102

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , M o s e l e y

an d C o r n e l i u s , * JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Cornelius

________________________ *Wil liam J . Cornelius, Chief J ustice, Retired, Sitting by Assignme nt2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON A jury convicted L ee Charles Hamilton of possessing more than one g ram but le ss tha n four g rams of c ocaine . His punishment, enhance d by two prior fe lony

convictions, was set by

the trial

c ourt a t li fe imp ri so nme nt. Hamilton raises four

issues on appea l. I n these issues, he c ontends (1) the State failed to give him proper a

nd sufficie nt notice th at i t would use evidenc e of pr ior convictions to enhanc e the punishment; (2) it was er

ror to over

rule Ha milton's motion to di squalify the trial judg e; (3) the trial court e rre d in overrulingthe def ense' s motion for continuance in order to secur e the attendanc e of

nece ssary witnesses; and (4) the evidenc e is insufficient to prove that the contra band Hamilton was convicted of

possessing w eig hed more than one g ram. We over rule a ll these contentions and a ffirm the jud g me nt. We f ir st ad dr e ss the c on te nti on that the State fa ile d to gi ve pr op e r n oti c e of its int e nti on

to prove e nhance ments to the punishment. I f the State intends to use prior convic tions to enhance the punis hme nt i n a c ri min a l c a se , it mus t g ive the de fe nd ant r e a so na ble no tic e of

its int e nti on

by so me kind of pleading

. Br oo k

s v . S tate , 9 57 S.W. 2d

30 , 3 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ); Coc hran v . S tate , 107 S.W .3d 96, 99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). The re is no statute pre scribing a par ticular kin d o f n oti c e or a pa

rt ic ula r time wh e n the no tic e mus t be g ive n. Te n d ay s b e fo re tr ia l ha s b e e n h e ld to be pre sumptively rea sonable, but notice shorter than ten day s has also been held to be re asonable , dependingon the circ umstances of the ca se and the actions of th e def endant a nd the State. See3

Ri c ha rd so n v . S tate , 1 70 S.W. 3d 85 5 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 05 , p e t. r e f' d) ; Ha c k

e tt v . S tate , 160 S.W. 3d 58 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 5, pe t. r e f' d) ; Sp law n v . Stat e , 1 6 0 S. W. 3 d 1 0 3 ( T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 05 , pe t. r e f' d) ; Mc

Nat t v . S tate , 152 S.W .3d 645 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004), aff' d in part & rev'd in part on other grounds , 188 S.W. 3d 19 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Barnes v. Sta te , 152 S.W .3d 144 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pe t.). The trial he re be g an on Apr il 4, 2007. A d et ai l ed notice of the State' s intent to int roduce evidenc e of the prior convic tions was serve d by courie r on Hamilton's counsel of rec ord on Fe bruar y 22, 2007, acc ording to the cer tificate of service signe d by the assistant district attorney who prosec uted the ca se for

the State, but the notice wa s not filed in the rec ord until later, on F e br ua ry 7, 20 08 . H a mil ton

argue s in

his br ie f t

hat th e re is n o e vid e nc e in t he recor d th a t hi s attorney actua l l y rec eived the notice . He posits that the rules f or ef fec ting se rvice of a notice of enhanc ements in criminal ca ses should be at lea st as eff ectua l as those provided in the Te x as Rules of Civil P roce dure f

or g iving notice . We ag ree . But Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil P roce dure pr ov ide s th a t a

c e rt if ic a tio n b y an atto rn e y

of re c or d s ho wi ngse rv ic e of a no tic e sh a ll be pr ima fa c ie evidenc e of the fac t of servic e. T EX . R. C IV . P. 21a. A party or attorney contending that the notice was not receive d has t he burden to prove that the not ice was not rec eived. A certificate of ser vice

cre ates a presumption that the re quisite noti ce was ser ved, and in the a

bsence of evide nce to the contra ry , has the for ce of

law. Clif f v. Huggins , 7 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 ( T e x. 1 98 7) ; Krchnok v. Fulton , 759 S.W .2d 524 (Tex . App.—Amar illo 1988, writ denied). Hamilton di d not rebut the4

presumptio n c r e a te d b y th e c e rti f ic a te o f s e r

v ic e . T h u s , h e r e c e iv e d s e r v ic e o f th e in te n t to prove enhanc ements on F ebrua

ry 22, 2007, approximately forty day s befor e the time the tria l beg an. Additionally , the re cord here shows that, at a pre trial hea ring held on Marc h 5, 2007, one month before trial, Hamilton w as prese nt when the State announce d that it ha d sent a notice to the defe nse that i t would seek to enhanc e the punishment by prior convictions. At the s ame hearing , the trial court a dmonished Hamilton as to t h e prior c onvictions and Hamilton pleade d true to the

e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra

ph s and fr e e ly a dmi tte d th a t he wa s th e pe rs on c on vic te d. I n v ie w o f a ll the se fac ts, we hold that Hamilton cannot complain of t he lack of prope r, timely notice. Ha rv e

yv . S tate , 61 1 S. W.2 d 1 08 , 1 11 –1 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ); O'D e ll v . S tate , 4 67 S.W. 2d

44 4, 44 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 71 ); De nh am v . S tate , 428 S.W .2d 814, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968). We next addre ss the contention t hat i t was error to overr ule Hamilt on' s motion to di squalify the trial judg e, the Honora ble J ohn Miller. The basis of the c laim of disqualification is the asser tion that J udg e Mi ller, i n the capacity of counse l for the State, ha d previously prosec uted Hamilton. The motion for disqualification simply stated that Judge Miller had pre viously serve d as counse l for the State " in t his matte r. " Th e mot ion

a lso state d th a t Judg e Mil le r h a d " se c ur e d a c on vic tio n a g a ins t the Def endant whic h is being used to enha nce the punishment rang e." Th e mot ion

to d isq ua lif y the tr ia l ju dg e was pr op e rl y ov e rr ule d. Th e a

pp lic a ble statut e provides that " No judg e . . . shall sit in any case . . . wher e he has been of counsel for the State or the

accus ed. " T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 30.01 (V ernon 2006) . This statute applies only if the5

trial judg e has a ctively

participated as counsel in the ve ry case now bef

ore him. Ga me

z v . S tate , 737 S.W .2d 315, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). J udg e Mi ller had not participated as c ounsel in the

c a se be ingtr ie d h e re . Atr ia l ju dg e is n ot d isq ua lif ie d f ro m pr e sid ingov e r a

tr ia l w he n a

ne w o ff e ns e is charg ed, Ha wth or

nev . S tate , 459 S.W. 2d 82 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 70 ), e ve n th ou g h h e pe rs on a lly pr os e c ute d th e de fe nd ant on a pr ior fe lony c on vic tio n use d by the State fo r e nh anc e me nt p ur po se s. Ne v e re z v . S tate , 83 2 S.W. 2d 82 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 1 99 2, pe t. r e f' d) ; O'D e ll v . S tate , 651 S.W .2d 48 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 1983, pet. ref' d). We next consider the trial court' s actions in overr uling Ha milton's motion for continuanc e. The mot ion was filed on Ma rch 30, 2007, f

ive day s befor e trial wa s to beg in, although the case had been pe nding f

or more tha

n tw o y ea rs. The purpose of the motion was to g ain time to secure the prese nce of

alleg ed witnesses Cobie Da vis, L akeisha

Bates, Amy Har

riman, and Br idge t Smith. A n application for

subpoena f

or these a nd other a lleg ed witnesses w as also file d o n M arch 30, 2007. The motion for

continuance was not sworn to, a nd the re cord shows that Hamilton was awa re of the exis tence of the a lleg ed witnesses a pproxi mately

two y ear s befor e trial, but the subpoena s were not reque sted for the m until t he day the motion for continuanc e wa s made. Motions for continuance in criminal trials must be sworn to. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 29.08 (V ernon 2006) . Be cause the motion here w as not sw orn to, it prese nts nothingfor r eview. Ma tam or os v . S

tate , 9 01 S.W. 2d

47 0, 47 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); Ro dr igu e z v . S tate , 903 S.W .2d 405 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. re f' d). I n view of this fa ct and the fa ct that Hamilton knew6

of the wi tne sse s f

or ne arl y tw o y e ars be fo re fi lin g th e mo ti on , the tri a l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion in over

ruling the motion for continuanc e. Hamilton c halleng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to pr ove that the weig ht of the coc aine possessed wa s more than one g ram. As the State points out in its brief, Hamilton' s challeng e her e is rea lly not to the s ufficie ncy of t he evidence, but to the credibility of t he chemist's testi mony that the tot a l w e ig ht o f t

he c oc a ine fo un d in five sma ll b a g s w a s mo re tha n o ne g ra m. D ur ingc ro ssexamination, Hamilton's counsel e licited testimony from the chemist that she weig hed all five of the bag s, including their contents. Then, she weig hed one empty bag , multipl ied its e mpty weight by five, a nd then subtrac ted the combined w eig hts of the empty bag s from the total we ight of the five loaded ba g s. The total we ight of the coc aine a lone was 1.45 g rams. Hamilton's counsel sug g ested to t he c he mis t th a t th e c omb ine d we ig ht of the e mpt y ba g s, wh e n sub tr a c te d fr om the tot a l w e ig ht,

wo uld le a ve the tot a l w e ig ht o f t he c oc a ine a lon e a t le ss t ha n o ne g ra m. The chem is t vig or ou sly dis pu te d th is s ug g e sti on . Sh e sa id t he va ri a bil ity of the size of the ba g s w a s v e ry sli g ht, no e mpt

y bagweig hed more than 0.07 g rams, and at the very most, their total we ight could not bring the total

we i gh to f t h e c o n t rab an d al o n e t o u n d er

o n e gr am . T h e j u ro rs o b v i o u s l y b el i ev edt h e c h em i s t 's testimony and ac cepte d her c alculations, which w as their pr erog ative. No e rror is shown. Ha mil ton a lso c la ims in h is a

rgume nt u

nd e r thi s is su e that th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in fa ili ngto g rant his re quest for a quantitative ana ly sis. This mot ion was filed less than f ive day s befor e the tria l beg an, ther e wa s no evidenc e or claim that any fore ign substanc e wa s contained w ith the coca ine,7

and the we ight of

the empty

bag g ies was e stablished by the che mist's tes t i m o n y . The State is no longe r require d to prove the a mount of the controlled substanc e and the amount of adulter ants and dilutants. The State must prove only that the ag g reg ate of

the controlled substanc e, in cl uding adultera nts an d d i l u t ants, if any , equals the minimum weig ht for the of fense char g ed. Melton v. Sta te , 120 S.W .3d 339, 344 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). I n these circ umstances, Hami l t o n wa s n ot harme d. We find no reve rsible er ror. F or a ll o f t he re a so ns state d, we a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.

Wil liam J . Cornelius J ustice* *Wil liam J . Cornelius, Chief J ustice, Retired, Sitting by Assignme nt Date Submitted: Marc h 6, 2008 Date D ecide d: J uly 16, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh