Case Name: Scott David SPINDLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1987-11-18
Citations: 740 S.W.2d 789
Docket Number: No. 254-86
Parties: Scott David SPINDLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: CAMPBELL, J., concurs in the result.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 740
Pages: 789–794

Head Matter:
Scott David SPINDLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 254-86.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Nov. 18, 1987.
W. John Allison, (on appeal only), Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. & Kathi Alyce Drew, Dan Hagood, David Lewis & Michael O’Connor, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TEAGUE, Judge.
This is another Dallas County Magistrate's Act case. It is also the second time that this cause has been before this Court. This time, however, we will affirm the judgment of the Dallas Court of Appeals, 701 S.W.2d 297.
Previously, the Dallas Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, see Spindler v. State, Tex.App.-5th No. 05-84-00556-CR, January 4, 1985, reversed appellant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter, which was based upon a plea of guilty, and his punishment of 10 years' confinement in the Department of Corrections that was assessed by the trial judge. As to the punishment that was assessed, see post. The reversal was based upon that court's decision of Scott v. State, 668 S.W.2d 430 (Tex.App.-5th 1984), which held that a Dallas County Magistrate did not have the statutory authority to preside over a plea of guilty unless the plea of guilty was "negotiated" within the meaning of Art. 1918c(4)(a)(1), V.A.C.S. After finding that appellant's plea of guilty was not a "negotiated" plea, the court of appeals reversed. After the court of appeals rendered its decision, this Court held in Scott v. State, 690 S.W.2d 256 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), that a magistrate had the statutory authority to preside over hearings involving negotiated pleas where no agreement as to punishment existed or had been reached. In Spindler v. State, Tex.Cr.App.No. 311-85, October 30, 1985), this Court granted the State's petition for discretionary review and, based upon this Court's decision of Scott v. State, supra, vacated the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the cause to the Dallas Court of Appeals for it to reconsider appellant's contention that the magistrate was without authority to act because there was or had been no "negotiated" plea. This Court refused appellant's petition for discretionary review in which he asserted, inter alia, that his conviction was void because no express order of referral from the district court judge to the magistrate, expressly authorizing the magistrate to accept appellant's plea of guilty, was in the record of appeal. This contention, however, was not presented to the court of appeals when that court originally acted on appellant's direct appeal nor was it considered by that court on remand.
On remand to the court of appeals, appellant did not seek to present his contention, that because no referral order existed in the record of this cause the magistrate was without jurisdiction or authority to hear the cause, but delayed raising this contention until he filed his motion for rehearing. On original submission, the court of appeals applied this Court's decision of Scott v. State, supra, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. On motion for rehearing, appellant presented the issue that he seeks to have this Court review at this time. The court of appeals, however, held that "Appellant may not allege new grounds of error for the first time on motion for rehearing", citing this Court's decision of Williams v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 296, 194 S.W.2d 94 (1946) as its authority. However, Williams v. State, supra, does not contain such an express holding. We find that only by a strained reading of that opinion could one conclude or infer that Williams, supra, supports such a holding.
In Garrett v. State, (Tex.Cr.App. No. 642-83, June 22, 1986) (Pending on State's motion for rehearing), this Court held that a court of appeals is not bound by a remand order from this Court and is free to consider a new ground of error that is presented after the case is remanded to that court. Also see King v. State, 687 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Cr.App.1985) (Teague, J., dissenting opinion.) Rule 74(o) of the Tex. Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in part: "Briefs may be amended or supplemented at any time when justice requires upon such reasonable terms as the court may prescribe . . ." However, Rule 100(a) provides that "Any party desiring a rehearing of any matter determined by a court of appeals or any panel thereof must, within fifteen days after the date of rendition of the judgment or decision of the court, file with the clerk of the court a motion in writing for a rehearing, in which the points relied upon for the rehearing shall be distinctly specified." Also see Gambill v. State, 692 S.W.2d 106, 107 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). The question of the jurisdiction of the convicting court, or in this instance the jurisdiction or authority of the magistrate to act, may be raised at any time because judicial action without jurisdiction is void. See Gallagher v. State, 690 S.W.2d 587, 588-89 (Tex.Cr.App.1985).
In this instance, there does not appear to be any dispute over the fact that the original order of referral from the district court judge to the magistrate does not now exist and thus could not be placed in the record of appeal. No effort has been made to prepare a duplicate of that order. We cannot say, however, that a referral order never existed in this cause because the record of the hearing before the magistrate reflects that the magistrate stated to the parties the following: "I have . an Order by a District Judge referring this case to me for a hearing," to which statement appellant did not object.
The transcription of the proceedings conducted by the magistrate reflects that immediately after he made the above statement he then stated the following: "Papers have been filed in this case that indicate to me that at the time you are arraigned, that you intend to enter a plea of guilty." Appellant then entered a plea of guilty after which the magistrate admonished him pursuant to the provisions of Article 26.13, V.A.C.C.P. Thereafter, an "arraignment" was held, at which his attorney advised the magistrate that appellant wished to enter a plea of guilty, that he understood the contents of the indictment, that he understood he had the right to have a jury trial but that he wished to waive that right, and that he understood that he had the right to require the State to present its witnesses but that he wished to waive that right. Without objection, the defendant's written "judicial" confession was admitted into evidence. The defendant then testified, during which his attorney and the prosecutor questioned him regarding all of what had previously transpired. The magistrate then accepted appellant's plea of guilty and reset the case. Thereafter, a presentence investigation report was prepared and a full hearing on what punishment should be assessed was held by the district court judge, and not by the magistrate. Notwithstanding the fact that the State of Texas recommended to the trial judge that any punishment assessed by the trial judge be probated, the trial judge refused the recommendation and assessed punishment at 10 years' confinement in the Department of Corrections, but stated into the record that he would later consider placing appellant on "shock probation". See Art. 42.12, Sec. 3e(a), V.A.C.C.P.
Article 1918c, V.A.C.S., the Dallas County Magistrates' Act, " 'simply authorizes a procedure whereby magistrates, acting as surrogates and not judges, are appointed to assist the district court judges in certain limited matters', by performing certain assigned functions and providing recommendations to the referring judges." Kelley v. State, 676 S.W.2d 104, 107 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). Also see Scott v. State, 690 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Howard v. State, 690 S.W.2d 252, 255 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). Kelly v. State, 724 S.W.2d 42, 47 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). In Ex parte Stacey, 709 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), this Court reaffirmed the holding that "a general order of referral is a proper vehicle under the act", and also held that there is "no requirement to name a particular magistrate or issue an order of referral separately for each case." Notwithstanding these holdings, we continue to recommend to the affected district court judges of Dallas County that an individual form for each case referred to a magistrate be prepared and completed and placed in the file of the case. See footnote 3 in the last Kelly v. State, supra.
Appellant contends that because no order of referral was placed in the record the magistrate was without "jurisdiction" to accept appellant's plea of guilty. In this instance, however, although we do not have either the original or a substitute copy of the original of the order of referral, see and compare Article 21.25, V.A.C.C.P., which governs the replacement of lost indictments or informations, we do have record evidence that an order of referral existed when the magistrate accepted appellant's plea of guilty. We find that, at a minimum, the order of referral authorized the magistrate to conduct "a hearing".
The term "hearing" is not defined in our penal code or our code of criminal procedure. Our research reveals that within the legal signification of the term "hearing", its meaning is often dependent on the context in which the term is used. It is technically an equity term, see Miller v. Tobin, 18 F. 609, 616 (Cir.Ct.Ore.1883), and thus is technically applicable only to proceedings in chancery courts and not law courts. Thus, technically speaking, the term "hearing" is to be used in contradistinction to the term "trial", which is technically applicable only to law trials. Today, however, the two words, "hearing" and "trial", oftentimes are used to mean the same thing. See Menard v. Bowman Dairy Co., 15 N.E.2d 1014, 1015, 296 Ill.App. 323 (App.Ct. Ill., 1st Div., 3rd Div., 1938). In Bowles v. Baer, 142 F.2d 787, 788 (7th Cir.1944), that court pointed out that "in hearings there are parties and issues of law and of fact to be tried and at the conclusion of the hearing action is taken [by the presiding officer] which may affect the rights of the parties." In this instance, appellant has never challenged that his plea of guilty was involuntary or that the magistrate failed to properly admonish him as to the plea or the consequences thereof.
We find and hold that the magistrate in this cause had "jurisdiction" and was authorized to conduct a "hearing" on whether to accept appellant's plea of guilty, i.e., he had "jurisdiction" to cover every necessary called for step that would authorize him to accept appellant's plea of guilty. E.g., State ex rel. Lebeck v. Chavez, 113 P.2d 179, 187, 45 N.M. 161 (1941).
Therefore, we overrule appellant's contention that because the original order of referral was not placed in the record of this cause the magistrate acted without lawful authority in accepting appellant's plea of guilty. Given this holding, we do not find it necessary to discuss appellant's contention that the referring district court judge was required to repeat, at the "punishment hearing" that he later conducted, what had previously taken place before the magistrate.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
CAMPBELL, J., concurs in the result.
ONION, P.J., and MILLER and DUNCAN, JJ., dissent.