Court Opinion

ID: 9717519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:05:03.084314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.687008
License: Public Domain

DAVID GAULTNEY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Constitution of the State of Texas provides that the “presentment” of an indictment to a court vests the court with jurisdiction of the cause. See Tex. Const, art. V, § 12(b). “Presentment” occurs when the indictment is delivered by the grand jury to the judge or clerk of court. See Carrillo v. State, 2 S.W.3d 275, 277 n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Once an indictment is presented, jurisdiction vests, and defects discovered later do not divest the court of jurisdiction. Id. at 277. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that a substantively defective indictment is sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction. See Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471, 477 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); Rodriguez v. State, 799 S.W.2d 301, 302-03 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). An indictment vests the court with jurisdiction even if it fails to allege an element of the offense. See Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263, 272-73 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). See also Tex.Code Crim. Poc. Ann. art. 1.14(b) (Vernon 2005) (defect in indictment must be raised before trial commences). I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the case.