Court Opinion

ID: 9779079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:35:39.51358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:20.922727
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant was convicted, after a plea of guilty, of the offense of theft of property valued at more than $200 but less than $10,000. Punishment was assessed at five years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections, probated for five years.
The Tenth Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed appellant’s conviction and held the “Speedy Trial Act,” Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 1970, ch. 787, unconstitutional on the basis of a defective title or caption under Article III, § 35, of the Texas Constitution.1 Meshell v. State, No. 10-84-168-CR (Tex.App. — Waco 10/17/85). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine 1) whether the Speedy Trial Act (Act) is unconstitutional because it violates Article III, § 35, or Article II, § 1, of the Texas Constitution2 and 2) whether the indictment against appellant should have been dismissed under the Act or under the speedy trial clauses of the federal or state constitutions. Art. 32A.02, § 1(1), V.A.C. C.P.; U.S. Const. amend. VI; Tex.Const. art. I, § 10.3 We will affirm.
*249I. Procedural History
In early May of 1983, appellant was questioned by a Walker County deputy sheriff in the course of an investigation of the theft of a truckload of pipe. On or about May 20, 1983, a warrant for appellant’s arrest was issued in Walker County and teletyped to Harris County, where appellant was known to reside. Appellant was arrested by a Harris County deputy sheriff on May 25, 1983 and transported to Walker County the next day. On June 21, 1983, a motion for nolle prosequi was granted because the Walker County Criminal District Attorney had discovered that the offense had been committed in Freestone County. Appellant was no-billed by a Walker County grand jury. Appellant returned home to Harris County.
On June 21, 1983, the Walker County Sheriffs Office forwarded the results of their investigation to the Freestone County Attorney’s Office. On June 28, 1983, a warrant for appellant’s arrest, issued by a Freestone County Justice of the Peace, was received by the Freestone County Sheriff’s Office. On June 29, 1983, the warrant, which contained an incorrect address of appellant’s residence, was teletyped to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. On July 21, 1983, a Freestone County grand jury indicted appellant for felony theft. Appellant was not aware of either the warrant or the indictment.
On August 9,1983, after the felony theft charge had been filed against appellant, data regarding appellant and the warrant for his arrest were entered by the Freestone County Sheriff’s Office onto the Texas Crime Information Center and the National Crime Information Center computer networks. On September 22, 1983, the Freestone County Sheriff’s Office sent a second teletype to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, correcting appellant’s address and requesting help in enforcing the warrant. On August 6, 1984, appellant was arrested by an officer with the LaPorte Police Department.
On September 4, 1984, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment pending against him. In the motion, appellant cited the State’s failure to be ready for trial within 120 days under the Speedy Trial Act as the basis for dismissal. On September 7, 1984, a hearing on appellant’s motion was held, revealing the above facts. By way of an explanation for the delay in arresting appellant, the State offered into evidence a stipulation as to the backlog of warrants in Harris County. Appellant agreed, and the stipulation follows:
1) As of June 1984, in Harris County there were 12,620 out-of-county and 18,000 in-county outstanding warrants;
2) the Harris County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) receives approximately 75-100 new in-county felony warrants each day and 200-300 teletypes each month;
3) the HCSO has 26 deputy sheriff’s in the warrant service division, working in 13 two man teams;
4) the HCSO attempts to serve approximately 130 warrants/day but successfully serves approximately 500/month.
(R. 11-58).
The State also filed a response to appellant’s motion for dismissal, arguing that the Speedy Trial Act was unconstitutional. In part, the motion stated:
The State would show that the caption of said bill [Acts 1977, 65th Leg., Ch. 787, pg. 1970] is defective in that it does not and did not contain sufficient information as to inform members of the Legislature as to its content and therefore violates the caption requirement and Art. Ill, Sec. 35 of The Texas Constitution.
The State would further show that the Texas Speedy Trial Act is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, Art. II, Sec. 1, and also is a violation of The Texas Constitution, Art. V, Sec. 8, Art. V, Sec. 16, Art. V, Sec. 19, and any other applicable provisions of the Texas Constitution.
(R. 1-8).
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court agreed with appellant that the State had violated the Act but denied appellant’s motion after holding the Act unconstitutional. No reason was given by the trial court for its ruling.
*250On October 3, 1984, appellant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain that included preservation of his claim for “the limited area of the constitutionality of the Speedy Trial Act.” (Record of Guilty Plea, pp. 5, 10, 11). On appeal, appellant raised his Speedy Trial claim as his sole ground of error. In a supplemental brief, appellant responded to the State’s constitutional attacks upon the Act and also claimed not to have waived his right to a speedy trial under either the United States or Texas Constitutions.
II. Requirement of Present Injury
Before a court decides an issue involving the constitutionality of a statute, it must first assure itself that the party raising such a claim has presently been injured by the statute. Ex parte Spring, 586 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) and cases cited therein. This requirement stems from our reluctance to decide constitutional questions unless absolutely necessary. Ex parte Salfen, 618 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Therefore, this Court must assure itself that the State’s constitutional claim is not “based upon an apprehension of future injury.” Spring, supra.
The Court of Appeals, without citing any authority, held that “[t]he record supports the trial court’s ruling that the State was not ready for trial within 120 days after commencement of this felony criminal action.” 4 Meshell, supra, slip op. at 2. If the Court of Appeals was correct, then the trial court would be required to dismiss the indictment, thus barring the State from further prosecution of appellant. Art. 28.061, V.A.C.C.P. It is this threat of dismissal with prejudice that establishes present injury to the State in this cause.
Article 32A.02, § 1(1), supra, requires the State to be ready for trial within 120 days after commencement of a felony criminal action or risk dismissal of the indictment with prejudice.5 Barfield v. State, 586 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Art. 28.061, supra. A felony criminal action commences when an indictment against a defendant for a felony offense is filed in court or when the defendant is arrested for the same offense, whichever occurs first. Art. 32A.02, § 2(a), supra; Euziere v. State, 648 S.W.2d 700, 704-705 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). However, a defendant must make a claim under the Act before the State is required to prove its readiness. Art. 32A.02, § 3, supra; Barfield, supra, at 542.
Once a defendant has raised a claim under the Act, the State must respond with proof of its readiness for trial. Id. Normally, a prima facie showing of readiness will take the form of an announcement that the State is ready for trial and has been ready at all times required by the Act. Id. However, further proof may be necessary if the defendant rebuts the announcement by demonstrating that the State was not ready for trial within 120 days after commencement of the felony criminal action. Id.
“... [Sjecuring the defendant’s presence is a readiness burden which falls upon the State under the Speedy Trial Act.” Lyles v. State, 653 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). See Art. 32A.02, § 4(4), (5) & (9), supra. Even if a defendant’s location is known, the State must exert due diligence in obtaining his presence for trial. Art. 32A.02, § 4(5), supra; Ex parte Hilli-ard, 687 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985). Moreover, “[t]he prosecutor cannot *251excuse a lack of due diligence on his part [in obtaining the defendant’s presence] by pointing the finger at the Sheriff or other law enforcement agency.” Lyles, supra, at 779. Indeed, if a prosecutor seeks the presence of a defendant by capias, he “is obliged by [his] own assigned responsibility to exercise due diligence to follow though in the endeavor to obtain the presence of an accused for trial.” Id., at 780 (Clinton, J., concurring).
In the trial court of the instant case, appellant rebutted the State’s readiness by showing that his presence had not been obtained until at least 12 months had elapsed from the time he was indicted by a Freestone County grand jury on July 21, 1983 to his arrest on August 6, 1984. This time period obviously exceeded the 120 day time limit of the Act.
The Freestone County Attorney countered that Article 32A.02, § 4(10), supra, excused the delay in his preparation for trial, vis a vis obtaining appellant’s presence.6 The Freestone County Attorney argued that the Harris County Sheriff Department’s backlog in executing warrants presented an “exceptional circumstance” that excused the one year delay in arresting appellant. However, before the Court of Appeals, the State conceded that it had violated the Act by failing to obtain appellant’s presence within 120 days of indictment. See n. 4, infra, at 260.
In the instant case, the Freestone County Attorney did not recontact the Harris County Sheriff’s Department throughout the yearlong delay in appellant’s arrest. Nor did the County Attorney attempt to enforce the warrant through some officer directly under his control. In the absence of such a showing of due diligence, the Act requires the County Attorney to accept complete responsibility for the absence of appellant and his subsequent lack of “readiness” for trial.
Article 32A.02, § 4(10), supra, does not excuse a prosecutor from exercising due diligence in obtaining a defendant’s presence by shifting the blame to another official, e.g., a sheriff. Instead, Article 32A.02, § 4(10), creates an exception for prosecutorial delay resulting from some exceptional circumstance other than a backlog, staff shortage or general negligence. Santibanez v. State, 717 S.W.2d 326 (Tex. Cr.App.1986).
Under these circumstances, we find that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the State violated the readiness requirement of the Act by not obtaining appellant’s presence within 120 days after indictment. Unless the Act is held unconstitutional, the indictment against appellant must be dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, we find that the State has established present injury under the Act.
III. Defective Caption
The Court of Appeals held the Act unconstitutional after finding that its caption violated the notice requirement of Article III, § 35, of the Texas Constitution. Meshell, supra, at 2-3. The Court of Appeals, citing Ex parte Crisp, 661 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Cr. App.1983), reh’g denied, 661 S.W.2d 956, specifically held that the caption to Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 1970, ch. 787, which contains the Speedy Trial Act, failed to provide the Legislature with adequate notice of its contents, thus rendering the Act void. Meshell, supra.
Appellant argues that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied Crisp, supra. However, we need not address the merits of the State’s claim, because Article III, § 35, of the Texas Constitution was recently amended to make the Legislature solely responsible for complying with caption requirements. See Baggett v. State, 722 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). Courts “no longer [have] the power to declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional due to the insufficiency of the caption.” Id. Therefore, the Court of Appeals’ decision is moot. Cf. Coronado v. State, 725 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.Cr.App.1987) (vacating and remanding decision , of court of appeals on sufficiency of caption of Speedy Trial Act).
*252The Court of Appeals also overruled the State’s two alternative bases for holding the Act unconstitutional. See n. 3, infra, at 260 and discussion post. If either of these arguments are sufficient to hold the Act unconstitutional, then the Court of Appeals’ decision must be upheld, albeit for a different reason. Therefore, we now address those arguments.
IV. Separation of Powers
The Court of Appeals held that the Act does not violate the separation of powers doctrine as contained in Article II, § 1, supra, and overruled the State’s arguments without elaboration or discussion. Meshell, supra, at 2.
The State now argues that the Court of Appeals incorrectly overruled its claim because the Act violates Article II, § 1, supra, for two reasons. First, the Act violates the separation of powers clause by being so vague as to require the judiciary to legislate under the guise of interpreting the Act. Second, the Act violates the separation of powers clause by depriving the Freestone County Attorney of his right to exercise judgment and discretion in performing his exclusive prosecutorial function. We will address the latter argument first.
Soon after the Speedy Trial Act became effective in 1979, Judge Clinton prophesied that the Speedy Trial Act was “subject to an attack that its effects violate the separation of powers provisions of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Texas.” Ordunez v. Bean, 579 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (Clinton, J., concurring). Specifically, Judge Clinton, suggested that “[t]he Speedy Trial Act deprives prosecuting attorneys of their right to exercise judgment and discretion in performing their exclusive prosecutorial function.” Id.7 After the passage of nearly ten years since the promulgation of the Act, that very issue is now before this Court.8
Article II, § 1, supra, in a single, tersely phrased paragraph, provides that the constitutional division of the government into three departments (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) shall remain intact, “except in the instances herein expressly permitted.” This separation of the powers of government ensures “that a power which has been granted to one department of government may be exercised only by that branch to the exclusion of others.” Ex parte Giles, 502 S.W.2d 774, 780 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974), citing Snodgrass v. State, 67 Tex.Cr. R. 615, 150 S.W. 162 (1912). The separation of powers doctrine therefore requires that “any attempt by one department of government to interfere with the powers of another is null and void.” Giles, supra, citing Ex parte Rice, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 587, 162 S.W. 891 (1914).
Although one department has occasionally exercised a power that would otherwise seem to fit within the power of another department, our courts have only approved those actions when authorized by an express provision of the Constitution. See, e.g., Government Services Ins. Underwriters v. Jones, 368 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.1963) (Legislature could provide for legislative continuance under express power to establish rules of court in Article V, § 25, of the Texas Constitution); Ex parte Young-blood, 251 S.W. 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1923) (Legislature could not delegate contempt power to committee under limited power of Article III, § 15, of the Texas Constitution).
*253In the instant case, the State argues that the Legislative department has unconstitutionally encroached upon the Judicial department by infringing upon the exclusive prosecutorial discretion of the Freestone County Attorney. We must first determine whether the Freestone County Attorney is entitled to protection under Article II, § 1, supra.
The office of county attorney, as well as district and criminal district attorney, is established in Article V, § 21, of the Texas Constitution:
A County Attorney, for counties in which there is not a resident Criminal District Attorney, shall be elected by the qualified voters of each county, who shall be commissioned by the Governor, and hold his office for the term of four years. In case of vacancy the Commissioners Court of the county shall have the power to appoint a County Attorney until the next general election. The County Attorneys shall represent the State in all cases in the District and inferior courts in their respective counties; but if any county shall be included in a district in which there shall be a District Attorney, the respective duties of District Attorneys and County Attorneys shall in such counties be regulated by the Legislature. The Legislature may provide for the election of District Attorneys in such districts, as may be deemed necessary and make provision for the compensation of District Attorneys and County Attorneys. District Attorneys shall hold office for a term of four years, and until their successors have qualified.
By establishing the office of county attorney under Article V, the authors of the Texas Constitution placed those officers within the Judicial department.9
In Freestone County, the Legislature has not created either a District Attorney or a Criminal District Attorney’s office. See V.T.C.A., Government Code §§ 24.179, 44.-181, 45.181 (1986 Pamphlet). Therefore, only the Freestone County Attorney is vested with the constitutional duty “to represent the State in all cases in the District and inferior courts” in Freestone County. Art. V, § 21, supra. See Hill County v. Sheppard, 142 Tex. 358, 178 S.W.2d 261 (1944); Harris County v. Stewart, 91 Tex. 133, 41 S.W. 650 (1897).10
The Freestone County Attorney, having been granted the exclusive right within the Judicial department “to represent the State in all cases in the District and inferior courts,” is entitled to be protected by the separation of powers doctrine contained in Article II, § 1, supra. State v. Moore, 57 Tex. 307, 314 (1882). In Moore, supra, at 307, the Attorney General, a member of the Executive department, argued that he had the exclusive right to prosecute a defaulting tax collector and his sureties. The trial judge had given the Travis County Attorney exclusive control of the lawsuit. Id. at 310. The Supreme Court held that the Travis County Attorney, having specifically been given the duty, under Article V, § 21, supra, “of representing the state in all suits in the district and inferior courts,” had exclusive control of the lawsuit. Id. at 316 (emphasis in original). In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court relied upon Article II, § 1, supra, and stated:
It must be presumed that the constitution, in selecting the depositaries of a given power, unless it is otherwise expressed, intended that the depositary should exercise an exclusive power, with which the legislature could not interfere by appointing some other officer to exercise of (sic) the power.
Id. at 314 (emphasis added).
This principle, as applied to county attorneys in Moore, supra, was subsequently *254reaffirmed. Brady v. Brooks, 99 Tex. 366, 89 S.W. 1052 (1905)11 However, in amplifying the separation of powers doctrine, the Supreme Court did hold that the Legislature could create new causes of action in favor of the state and lodge the exclusive duty to prosecute such suits in the office of the Attorney General. Brady, supra. See State v. International & G.N.R. Co., 89 Tex. 562, 35 S.W. 1067 (1896). This apparent encroachment upon the power of district and county attorneys was permissible because an express provision of the Texas Constitution provides that the Attorney General shall “perform such other duties as may be required by law.” Tex.Const., Art. IV, § 22; see Brady, supra, 89 S.W. at 1055-56.
Recognition by the Supreme Court that the Texas Constitution may create express power for the Legislature to alter the duties of a county attorney’s constitutional office is consistent with the separation of powers doctrine because, as we noted above, Article II, § 1, supra, specifically provides that the doctrine is subject to exceptions “expressly permitted” in the constitution. See Annotated and Comparative Analysis, supra, at 91.
In applying the separation of powers doctrine, the Supreme Court has consistently prevented the Legislature from removing or abridging the constitutional duties of county attorneys. Hill County, supra; Maud v. Terrel, 109 Tex. 97, 200 S.W. 375 (1918). Cf. Staples v. State, 112 Tex. 61, 245 S.W. 639 (1922) (same protection for Attorney General). In Hill County, the Court, in rejecting the Legislature’s attempt to create a nonconstitutional office of Criminal District Attorney to replace the criminal prosecuting duties of a county attorney, stated:
Where certain duties are imposed or specific powers are conferred upon a designated officer, the Legislature cannot withdraw them ... nor confer them upon others nor abridge them or interfere with the officer’s right to exercise them unless the Constitution expressly so provides, [emphasis added].
Id. at 264. Accord State v. Ennis, 195 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1946, writ ref. n.r.e.); Agey v. American Liberty Pipe Line Co., 167 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1943), aff’d, 141 Tex. 379, 172 S.W.2d 972 (1943).
Although the duties of district or county attorneys are not enumerated in Article V, § 21, our courts have long recognized that, along with various civil duties, their primary function, is “to prosecute the pleas of the state in criminal cases.” Brady, supra, 89 S.W. at 1056. Accord Driscoll v. Harris County Com’rs Court, 688 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th] 1984, writ ref. n.r.e.) (opinion on rehearing); Shepperd v. Alaniz, 303 S.W.2d 846, 849 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1957, no writ). Cf. Baker v. Wade, 743 F.2d 236, 242 & n. 28 (5th Cir.1984) (“The laws of Texas vest in district and county attorneys the exclusive responsibility and control of criminal prosecutions and certain other types of proceedings.”), opinion withdrawn on reh’g, 769 F.2d 289, reh’g denied, 774 F.2d 1285, cert. denied, — U.S.—, 106 S.Ct. 3337, 92 L.Ed.2d 742 (1986). An obvious corollary to a district or county attorney’s duty to prosecute criminal cases is the utilization of his own discretion in the preparation of those cases for trial. Therefore, under the separation of powers doctrine, the Legislature may not remove or abridge a district or county attorney’s exclusive prosecutorial *255function, unless authorized by an express constitutional provision.
In the instant case, a dissenting member of the Court of Appeals argued that the Legislature has been given express authority to infringe upon the prose-cutorial function by its constitutional grant of rule-making power. Meshell, supra, at 5 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Indeed, Legislative authority to establish procedural rules of court is provided in Article V, § 25, of the Texas Constitution:
The Supreme Court shall have power to make and establish rules of procedure not inconsistent with the laws of the State for the government of said court and the other courts of this State to expedite the dispatch of business therein,
(emphasis added). Although negatively worded, this provision clearly intends that the Legislature have ultimate control over establishment of procedural rules of court. Government Services, supra, at 563.12 The Legislature, therefore, has “complete authority to pass any law regulating the means, manner, and mode of assertion of any of [a defendant’s] rights in the court.” Johnson v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 87, 58 S.W. 60, 71 (1900).
A prerequisite to the Legislature’s power to act under Article V, § 25, however, is the existence of a right for which the Legislature can provide procedural guidelines. Were it otherwise, the procedural legislation would itself create a substantive “right,” and exceed the grant of power in Article V, § 25, supra, thereby encroaching upon another department. Williams v. State, 707 S.W.2d 40 (Tex.Cr. App.1986) (per curiam) (Legislature exceeded limited power to enact procedural guidelines for bail and bail forfeiture); Young-blood, supra (Legislature exceeded limited authority of contempt power); Langever v. Miller, 124 Tex. 80, 76 S.W.2d 1025, 1035-38 (1934) (legislative power to enact procedural guidelines could not support substantive invasion of court’s ability to enforce valid prior judgment). Permitting such a result would by implication give the Legislature unlimited power to infringe upon the substantive power of the Judicial department under the guise of establishing “rules of court,” thus rendering the separation of powers doctrine meaningless.13 Cf. Williams, supra, at 47 (Allowing Legislature to alter final judgment under pretense of regulating procedures for bail would make “the power of the judicial branch ... a mockery, subject to the whim of the Legislature.”).
In enacting the Speedy Trial Act, the Legislature has attempted to provide procedural guidelines for statutory enforcement of a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial.14 See Ordunez, supra, at 916-17 (Clinton, J., concurring). At first blush this Act would seem to satisfy the requirement that a right exist before procedural guidelines could be enacted to enforce that right. However, the Act is not directed at providing procedural guidelines for the speedy commencement of trial. See id. at 917 (Clinton, J., concurring). Instead, as this Court has consistently held, the Act is directed at speeding the prosecutor’s preparation and ultimate readiness for trial. Santibanez, supra; Barfield; Ordunez, supra.15
*256We acknowledge that enforcing a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial under federal and state constitutions in some instances may require some intrusion into the prosecutor’s discretion to prepare for trial. For example, under both federal and state speedy trial clauses, the delay by a government official in obtaining a defendant’s presence following his indictment could cause a delay in the commencement of the trial. That delay, even if the result of negligence or staff shortage, may ultimately be attributed to the prosecutor. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192; United States v. Carter, 603 F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir.1979). However, the Speedy Trial Clauses, unlike the Speedy Trial Act, even when effecting a prosecutor’s discretion in preparing for trial, are directed at assuring speedy commencement of trial. The Speedy Trial Clauses assure speedy commencement of trial by focusing on at least four factors directly related to commencement of trial: 1) the length of the delay before trial, 2) the reason for the delay, 3) the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial and 4) any prejudice to a defendant resulting from that delay in trial. Barker, supra; Hull, supra; Turner, supra.
Beyond any scenario contemplated by the Legislature, the Act fails to incorporate these factors and thereby seriously encroaches upon a prosecutor’s exclusive function without the authority of an express constitutional provision.16 First, under the Act, few distinctions are drawn based upon the reason for delay. A prosecutor’s failure to obtain appellant’s presence weights equally as heavy upon him when the delay is attributed to negligence or staff shortage as when attributed to deliberate behavior. See Santibanez, supra. Under the Speedy Trial Clauses, “a deliberate attempt to delay, trial” is weighed much more heavily against the prosecutor than a “more neutral reason such as negligence or overcrowded courts.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192 (emphasis added). See also United States v. Carter, 603 F.2d 1204, 1207 (5th Cir. 1979).
Second, under the Act, no consideration is given to a defendant’s failure to request a speedy trial. In fact, a defendant need not request a speedy trial before seeking relief. See Art. 32A.02, § 3, Y.A.C.C.P. Indeed, requesting a speedy trial might hurt a defendant’s chances for dismissal by alerting an unaware prosecutor to announce ready. Under the Speedy Trial Clauses, “[t]he defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right ... is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right.” Barker, 407 U.S. at 531-32, 92 S.Ct. at 2192-93.
Third, and probably most critically, the Act does not require a defendant to show any prejudice. See Art. 32A.02, supra. Under the Speedy Trial Clauses, a defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the delay in his trial, with particular importance attached to any impairment of his defense. Id., at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193.
If the Act were enforced against the Freestone County Attorney in the instant case, he would be deprived of his exclusive prosecutorial discretion in preparing for trial without any consideration for the factors used in determining whether appellant has been deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. First, no consideration is given to the Freestone County Attorney’s reason for delay. Neither his own negligence nor the Harris County Sheriff’s backlog can mitigate any delay in obtaining appellant’s presence. Second, it is irrele*257vant whether appellant actually wanted a speedy trial. We acknowledge that appellant was unaware of the indictment pending against him in Freestone County; however, he was not even required to testify that he would have requested a speedy trial had he been aware of the indictment. Third, and probably most importantly, it is irrelevant whether appellant actually suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay in his trial. Appellant was not required to show any prejudice.
By failing to show some deference to these factors and by focusing upon a prosecutor’s readiness for trial, the Legislature has not created an Act that assures appellant of a speedy trial. Instead, it has only guaranteed appellant a dismissal with prejudice upon the Freestone County Attorney’s delay in obtaining appellant’s presence. That guarantee, however, deprived the Freestone County Attorney of his exclusive prosecutorial discretion in preparing for trial in the absence of any constitutional authorization.
While legislatively forcing a prosecutor’s readiness for trial may occasionally have an incidental salutary effect of speeding a case to trial, the Speedy Trial Act does not even accomplish that objective. Instead, the Act could more accurately be titled the “Speedy Announcement of Ready Act.” See generally Campbell & Edwards, The Right to a Speedy Trial: An Overview of the Texas Act, 44 Tex.B.J. 152 (1981). Once the State has shown itself ready for trial, the Act does not place any further burden upon the State to proceed to trial.17
In granting appellant such an overly broad power to control the Freestone County Attorney’s exclusive discretion in preparing for trial, the Legislature has exceeded its authority to protect appellant’s substantive right to a speedy trial through procedural legislation. Unless broad legislative authority for controlling the Freestone County Attorney’s discretion in preparing a case for trial can be found elsewhere, the Legislature has violated the separation of powers doctrine.
Because we are not aware of any other constitutional provision expressly granting the Legislature the power to control a prosecutor’s preparation for trial, we must conclude that the Legislature, by providing for such a right in the instant case, violated the separation of powers doctrine, Article II, § 1, supra. Therefore, we hold that Articles 28.061 & 32A.02 §§ 1(1), 4(5) & 4(10), supra, are unconstitutional.18 Cf. Williams, supra; Youngblood, supra; Langever, supra.
A portion of a legislative enactment, if declared unconstitutional, does not necessarily render the entire act invalid. In deciding whether the remainder of an act may remain viable, courts have considered several factors.
... Invalidity of a part [of a legislative enactment] does not destroy the entire act, unless the valid part is so intermingled with all parts of the act so as to make it impossible to separate them, and so as to preclude the presumption that the legislature would have passed the act anyhow.
... The test is not whether constitutional and unconstitutional provisions are contained in the same section, for the distribution into sections is purely artificial, but whether the provisions are essentially and inseparably connected in substance, [footnotes omitted]
12 Tex.Jur.3d, Constitutional Law § 42.
Article 32A.02, supra, clearly requires the application of its various provisions based upon an endless variety of factual situations. Without the provisions that we have just declared unconstitutional, Article 32A.02, supra, as a whole is rendered incapable of reasonable use. In addition, we find it obvious that the Legislature *258would not have passed Article 32A.02, § 1(1), supra, without including the enforcement mechanism of Article 28.061, supra. Therefore, we hold that Chapter 32A.02, in its entirety, and Article 28.061, supra, are rendered void.
V. Speedy Trial
In his second ground of review, appellant argues that the indictment against him should have been dismissed under either the Act or the federal and state speedy trial clauses. By holding portions of the Act unconstitutional, we have disposed of appellant’s statutory claim. Therefore, we now address appellant’s constitutional claim.
The Court of Appeals, despite acknowledging that it was raised for the first time on appeal, addressed appellant’s claim that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Meshell, supra. The Court held that appellant had failed to support his claim and overruled the ground of error. Id.
A defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere, which results in assessment of punishment within the range recommended by the prosecutor, does not waive his right to complain of pretrial rulings on appeal. Art. 44.02, V.A.C.C.P.; Morgan v. State, 688 S.W.2d 504 (Tex.Cr. App.1985). However, a defendant may only appeal those grounds either raised in a written pretrial motion or appealed by permission of the trial court. Art. 44.08, supra.
In the instant case, appellant’s pretrial motion only raised a claim under the Act. Appellant did not raise before the trial court, either by pretrial motion or otherwise, any claim under the federal or state speedy trial clauses. Nor did the trial court rule on such a constitutional claim.
The trial court initially held in appellant’s favor on his pretrial motion but ultimately denied relief after also holding the Act unconstitutional. Appellant then pled guilty with the sole understanding that he could appeal the trial court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the Act. Therefore, we hold that appellant failed to preserve for appellate review any constitutional claim under the federal or state speedy trial clauses. We need not decide whether the Court of Appeals’ decision on the merits of that constitutional claim was correct.
Although we reject its rationale, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held Article 32A.02, supra, and Article 28.061, supra, unconstitutional.

. Tex. Const, art. Ill, § 35 (Vernon’s 1984), in effect at the time of appellant’s direct appeal, provided:
No bill, (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed. Tex.Const., Art. Ill, § 35 (Vernon’s 1984).

. Article II, § 1, supra, provides:
The powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.

. We granted review because the Tenth Court of Appeals declared the Act unconstitutional. Tex. Cr.R.App.Pro. 302(c)(4). In addition, we note the existence of conflicting decisions between the Tenth Court of Appeals and the First and Second Courts of Appeals. Tex.Cr.R.App.Pro. 302(c)(1). Cf. Meshell, supra (caption to Act defective), Stewart v. State, 699 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.App. — Waco 1985, pet. granted), and Wallace v. State, No. 10-85-164-CR (Tex.App.— Waco 1985, pet. pending) (unpublished), with Wright v. State, 696 S.W.2d 288, 296 (Tex.App.— Forth Worth 1985) (caption to Act sufficient) and Morgan v. State, 696 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.App. —Houston [1st] 1985) (caption to Act sufficient). However, in granting appellant’s ground of review, we have not restricted our review only to the Court of Appeals’ application of Article III, § 35, supra.
Appellant's ground of review was phrased broadly, requesting review by this Court of ”[w]hether the Texas Speedy Trial Act ... is unconstitutional.” (Appellant’s Pet. for Review, p. 2). This Court has granted review of the entire decision of the Court of Appeals, which included a ruling that the Act did not violate Article II, § 1, of the Texas Constitution Art. Tex.Cr.R.App.Pro. 303(a).

. The absence of supporting authority is not surprising because the State conceded to the Court of Appeals that it had violated Article 32A.02, supra, and "that [a]ppellant is entitled to be discharged if said article is in fact [held] constitutional.” (State’s Brief in Court of Appeals, p. 2). However, in light of our requirement that actual present injury occur before addressing a constitutional question, we need not accept the State's concession.

. Article 32A.02, § 1(1), V.A.C.C.P., in pertinent part, provides:
“A court shall grant a motion to set aside an indictment ... if the state is not ready for trial within:
(1) 120 days of the commencement of a criminal action if the defendant is accused of a felony_”

. Article 32A.02, § 4(10), supra, allows the State to except from the 120 day time requirement "any other reasonable period of delay that is justified by exceptional circumstances.”

. Judge Clinton also suggested that the Act "trenches upon power and authority of state trial courts to manage their affairs, including control of their dockets ... [citations omitted].” Id. However, no such claim is made in the instant case, and we express no opinion on its merits.

. We note that the usurpation of power will not receive sanction by reason of a long and unpro-tested continuation. Rochelle v. Lane, 105 Tex. 350, 148 S.W. 558, 560 (1912). See, e.g., I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983) (declaring Immigration and Nationality Act, § 244(c)(2), unconstitutional some 32 years after passage of original bill); Northern Pipeline Const, v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982) (declaring Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 unconstitutional four years after effective date). But cf. Director, etc. v. Printing Industries Ass’n, 600 S.W.2d 264, 270-71 (Tex.1980) (Pope, J., dissenting).

. We acknowledge that some duties of county and district attorneys might more accurately be characterized as executive in nature; however, because the instant case involves a conflict between the Legislative and Judicial departments, such distinctions are unnecessary.

. For a more complete explanation of the cursory manner in which Article V, § 21, supra, controls legislative creation of the various offices of district attorney, criminal district attorney and county attorney, see The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis, Vol I, ed. George Braden (Austin: Texas Legislative Council, 1977), pp. 463-467.

. In reaffirming the separation of powers doctrine, as applied to county attorneys, the Court stated:
Now, we do not controvert the proposition, laid down in the Moore Case, that if section 21 of Article 5 should be construed as conferring upon county and district attorneys the exclusive power to represent the state in all cases except those in which the Attorney General is expressly authorized to act, then the Legislature would be prohibited from sub-trading from or abridging the powers so conferred.
Id. 89 S.W. at 1055. For other cases noting the continuing vitality of Moore, see Hill v. Texas Water Quality Bd., 568 S.W.2d 738 (Tex.Civ.App. —Austin 1978, writ ref. n.r.e.); State v. Walker-Texas Investment Co., 325 S.W.2d 209, 212 (Tex. Civ.App. — San Antonio 1959), writ ref. n.r.e., 160 Tex. 256, 328 S.W.2d 294 (1959) (per cu-riam); Upton v. City of San Angelo, 42 Tex.Civ. App. 76, 94 S.W. 436 (Austin 1906, no writ).

. For a general explanation of the manner in which rule-making power is distributed to the various departments, see Annotated and Comparative Analysis, supra, at 471-72.

. Of course, the Legislature could establish a new right under its general plenary power if that right did not infringe upon another department's separate power.

. Our state constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy trial_” Tex.Const. art. I, § 10. The federal constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy ... trial_" U.S. Const, amend VI.
The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967). Regardless, the same speedy trial right is provided under both state and federal clauses. Hull v. State, 699 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985); Turner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 133, 136 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).

.In fact, the caption to an amendment to the Act provides the following description: "An Act relating to the time limits for the state to be ready for trial in certain misdemeanor of-fenses_” Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 4, ch. 3 (emphasis added). Clearly, by 1979 the Legisla*256ture understood that the Act focused upon pros-ecutorial readiness for trial rather than actual commencement of trial.

. We have no doubt that the Legislature’s motives were conscientiously directed at assuring defendants of speedy trials. However, it is also clear that there was some doubt even during legislative hearings as to the manner in which the Speedy Trial Act would accomplish that objective. The majority of the speakers at those hearings presumed that the Act required a speedy commencement of trial rather than a speedy announcement of ready for trial by the prosecutor. Hearings before Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Matters on Senate Bill 1043, April 20, 1977; Hearings before House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence on House Bill 1654, May 10, 1977.

. This fact led a member of this Court to comment that "trials of criminal prosecutions may be only relatively accelerated by the strictest compliance with the provisions of the [A]ct.” Ordunez, supra, at 919 (Clinton, J., concurring).

. Consequently, we need not address the State’s claim that the separation of powers doctrine was violated because the Act requires judicial legislating. See discussion, infra, at 265-266.