Court Opinion

ID: 9761506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:44:16.552571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:24.049707
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of theft upon appellant’s plea of not guilty entered in a trial to the court, sitting without a jury. Punishment was assessed at six years confinement.
Appellant raises a single ground of error contending that the trial court reversibly erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment underlying his conviction pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Speedy Trial Act, Article 32A.02, V.A.C.C.P.
The record reflects that a complaint was filed on December 12, 1978, alleging that appellant had committed the theft offense which is the subject of the instant case; the return of an indictment thereon followed on January 9, 1979.
On both January 15, 1979 and April 16, 1979, the State filed identical written announcements of “ready” with the District Clerk, each of which stipulated the State’s readiness was “subject to fourteen days notice within which to secure attendance of its witnesses.”1
*411Some eight months after the filing of the complaint, on August 15, 1979, appellant was served with a certified copy of the indictment at the Harris County Jail where he had been continuously confined since December 2, 1978, apparently pursuant to an unrelated cause on which he had been convicted under an assumed name. A week later, counsel was appointed to represent appellant, and also on that day, August 22, the State filed a third announcement of ready, “subject to fourteen days notice within which to secure attendance of its witnesses.” [See n. 1, ante.]
On September 25, 1979, defense counsel filed a motion to set aside the indictment for failure to provide a speedy trial, alleging that appellant had at all times since the return of the indictment been in the custody of Harris County and “immediately available for service of the indictment;” that the State had failed to try him within 120 days of the indictment’s return; that the State had been “in no wise ready for trial for the simple reason that the State’s apparatus had not complied with the Statue [sic] in delivering the certified copy of the indictment to a party in custody. (In this case in custody in the same County);” 2 and finally, that the State was entitled to no period of exclusion in computing the time by which it must be ready under Section 4 of Article 32A.02, supra.
Pursuant to an agreed setting filed on the day counsel had been appointed to represent appellant, the cause was called for trial on October 2, 1979. On that day, the State filed a fourth announcement of ready, but the content of this announcement averred:
“Come now the ... undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and files this announcement in behalf of the State, and presents to the Court that it is ready for trial in the above numbered and entitled cause on this the 2nd day of October, 1979.”
The trial court entertained appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and convened a hearing thereon. After appellant adduced testimony, the State offered no evidence in rebuttal, but the trial court summarily overruled appellant’s motion.
On May 6, 1980, appellant entered a plea of not guilty in a trial before the court and was found guilty based on his written stipulation of evidence. Punishment was assessed at six years confinement, and it is from such conviction that appellant prosecutes this appeal.3
*412Article 32A.02, supra,4 provides in part relevant to the instant case:
“Sec. 1. 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;

Sec. 2(a) . . . [A] criminal action commences for purposes of this article when an indictment, ... or complaint against the defendant is filed in court, unless prior to the filing the defendant is either detained in custody or released on bail or personal bond to answer for the same offense or any other offense arising out of the same transaction, in which event the criminal action commences when he is arrested.
Sec. 4. In computing the time by which the State must be ready for trial, the following periods shall be excluded:
******
(4) a period of delay resulting from the absence of a defendant because his location is unknown and:
(A) he is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution; or
(B) the State has been unable to determine his location by due diligence;
In this Court, appellant contends that in the hearing on his motion to set aside the indictment, he not only established that the State was not in fact ready for trial within 120 days of the filing of the complaint,5 but also, that the State failed to employ due diligence to determine appellant’s location within that period and, thus, is entitled to no statutory period of exclusion. For its part, the State argues that its January 15, 1979, announcement of ready “subject to fourteen days notice within which to secure attendance of its witnesses” was sufficient to satisfy requirements of the Act; that appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the State was not actually ready at that time; and that the period of time between appellant’s arrest and his first appearance in court on August 22, 1979, should be excluded from the time calculations. See Section 4(4)(A) and (B) of the Act, recited ante.
The record reveals that the State filed one written announcement of ready, “subject to fourteen days notice.. .,” within the 120 day period following filing of the complaint against appellant. In Faire v. State, 588 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), it was held that “when the State announces ready and there is no challenge to this announcement to show otherwise by an accused we will presume that the State was ready. Ordunez v. Bean, 579 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (opinion concurring . . . at page 919). See also Hazen v. Pickett, 581 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). [(opinion concurring at 696)].”
While serious doubt exists as to whether the State’s January 15 written announcement is sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of readiness on that day, we need not pass on that question. Because the accused here did challenge as a factual matter the degree of the State’s preparedness, the written announcement is not dispositive of the issue before us. E. g., Pate v. State, 592 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).
In Barfield v. State, 586 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), a panel of this Court held that the threshold standard for dismissal under the Act refers to the preparedness of attorneys for the State, in fact, to proceed to trial on the merits. Also determined in Barfield, supra, is the manner of proof of this threshold standard:
Once the defendant files his motion to dismiss for failure to adhere to the provisions of the Act, the State must declare its readiness for trial then and at the times required by the Act. This declaration is a prima facie showing of conformity to the Act, but can be rebutted by evidence submitted by the defendant demonstrating that the State was not *413ready for trial within the Act’s time limits. This evidence may come from any source including cross examination of those responsible for preparing the State’s case, and may consist of, among other things, a demonstration that the State did not have a key witness or piece of evidence available by the last day of the applicable time limit so that the State was not ready for trial within that time limit.”
586 S.W.2d at 542.
At the hearing on appellant’s motion to set aside the indictment, appellant called Assistant District Attorney Gerald Fry to testify regarding the State’s readiness for trial, both on January 15 and on April 11, 1979. Fry related that it was his understanding that when announcements were filed on January 15 and April 16 of 1979, “the defendant was not arrested ... but we announced that we would be ready, subject to serving witnesses if the defendant was arrested.” Defense counsel continued,
“Q: All right. But so far as announcing ready for trial in the true sense of the word, you didn’t have your witnesses here? * * *
A: No. We did not have our witnesses here.
Q: You didn’t have a defendant here?
A: We did announce ready, subject to fourteen days in order to subpoena the witnesses. * * * The readies that you’re talking about were readies that were filed on nontrial dates.
Q: I understand.
A: Now the readies that we file on trial dates are the readies that are filed when the witnesses are present and we are ready for trial on that date.
Q: All right, sir. But what I’m saying, you didn’t schedule within the time limit from the date of the indictment, you didn’t schedule a trial date during that time, did you?
A: The defendant was not in custody. We could not schedule a trial date.”
Fry conceded that the State would at least have to have the complaining witness available in order to be ready to go forward with trial of the case. The trial court pointed out that the record indicated that the complaining witness was not subpoenaed until October 2, 1979; Mr. Fry testified that his file indicated the subpoena had issued on September 20, 1979, but affirmed that such date was “long after the 120 days [had] passed since the January 10th [sic] indictment.”
We6 hold that appellant rebutted the State’s claim of readiness within the 120 day period in issue, demonstrating that the State was in fact not ready to proceed to trial during that time. Pate v. State, supra; cf. Calloway v. State, 594 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Faire v. State, supra; Barfield v. State, supra.
But such holding does not terminate our inquiry, for, as noted in Faire v. State, supra, at 791, “[t]here are many instances in the Act which exclude certain times [prior to] trial before the [120 day period of the] Act is applicable [per se]. It was not provided for by the Legislature that the cause must be tried within 120 days.” See Section 4 of the Act.
Thus, upon appellant’s establishment that the State had not been ready at any time by April 11, 1979, the burden shifted to the State “to show why it was not ready within the 120 days so as to bring it within any of the exceptions to the Speedy Trial Act.”7 *414Pate v. State, supra, at 621. The State, however, offered nothing at the hearing on appellant’s motion.
On appeal, the State claims, in effect, that appellant failed to establish that due diligence on the part of the prosecution would have led to the discovery that appellant had been confined in their county jail, under an assumed name, since before the complaint was filed, and invites this Court to hold that appellant’s use of the alias “Robert Moore,” coupled with “his failure to apprise the authorities of his identity” constitutes a clear attempt to “avoid apprehension or prosecution,” within the meaning of Section 4(4)(A). We decline to adopt such an analysis, for while the State apparently chose not to avail itself of the opportunity to present evidence at the hearing, appellant did not stop so short.
Appellant testified that he had been in the Harris County Jail since early December of 1978,8 charged with the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. According to appellant, he entered a guilty plea to this offense on January 8, 1979, and was convicted 9 under the name of “Robert Moore,” an alias he had never used before. Appellant claimed that the authorities knew his real name was Charles Walton Hamilton, and had obtained his fingerprints and mug shots upon his arrest for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle charge, as well as from various arrests under the name of Charles Walton Hamilton.
Appellant related that while incarcerated as “Robert Moore” he had been charged in municipal court for a misdemeanor escape from the city compound under the name of Charles Walton Hamilton, and on January 9, 1979, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office transported him — as Charles Walton Hamilton — to municipal court for trial, then transported him back on the same day.
Deputy Flo Gordon of the Harris County Sheriff’s Department testified that her present duty assignment was in “central records, jail division.” Defense counsel first inquired:
“Q: For purposefs] of the record, central records keeps records on all prisoners in the Harris County jail; is this correct?
A: That’s correct.
Q: And you use a computer system and a cross-index system of some sort, do you not?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Does coentral records also rely on the fingerprint system for sorting out the identification of prisoners?
A: Yes, sir.”
Gordon was asked whether fingerprints could be checked out “through some central bureau” if they were all that was available; she replied that she did not “work in identification” and did not “know how they work in there.” It was brought out that the jail record concerning appellant which was in Gordon’s possession, reflected a different date of birth than that given by appellant in his testimony. Gordon stated she did not have a record of transports on the jail card and there was no indication, one way or the other, that appellant had been taken to municipal court on January 9.10
The remainder of Gordon’s testimony is best related as follows:
*415“Q: Do you have any cross-index to show that Robert Moore is in fact Charles Walton Hamilton?
A: Only by I guess fingerprints. I can’t vouch for it.
Q: Could you tell us how you came to bring to the courtroom both the records of Moore and .. . Hamilton?
A: The jail card I have is what the computer printout shows to be a spin number which identifies the subject. The only jail card I have is the one that he’s presently in custody on, and it shows Charles Hamilton to be Robert Moore. ******
Q: On your records you show the name of Robert Moore at the top and then you show under there a/k/a, which means also known as Charles Walton Hamilton, and you have it marked as the real name of that; is that not correct?
A: Yes, sir.”
It is not refuted by appellant that on August 15, 1979, the prosecution “discovered” that he had in fact been in Harris County custody since the commencement of the felony action here in issue, and on that day served him with a copy of the indictment. However, the State offered no explanation of how it ultimately made this “discovery,” nor of what efforts it made prior to that time to ascertain the whereabouts of appellant. Thus, we are uninformed as to both the quality and quantity of “diligence” on the part of the State, which was necessitated by the circumstances.
Further, the most damaging testimony presented by appellant — that he had been properly identified and trasported by the County Sheriff’s Office, as Charles Walton Hamilton, to municipal court on the very day the indictment herein was returned— was left unrebutted by the State. It is urged by the State that two unrelated jail cards — one regarding “Robert Moore” and another regarding “Charles Walton Hamilton” — existed until August 15, when they were consolidated pursuant to the State’s “discovery” that appellant was in Harris County custody. In support of this claim, the State points to the fact that all entries contained in Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 are handwritten, except that which reflects “HAMILTON CHARLES WALTON REAL NAME,” which was typed. The State argues that this indicates that the typed entry was made later than the others. But it is equally reasonable to conclude that the jail cards were consolidated (if they were) on January 9, 1979, the day of appellant’s transport to municipal court. At any rate, there is nothing in the record before us to establish that jail records concerning appellant ever reñected anything other than that “Charles Walton Hamilton” was the “real name” of “Robert Moore.” And lastly, though the witness Flo Gordon admitted that she did not “work in identification” and did not “know how they work in there,” she confirmed more than once that the central records division employed a system for prisoner identification utilizing fingerprints. The State offered no evidence to refute this.
We are constrained to hold that the State wholly failed to meet its burden of proving that the period of delay between December 12, 1978 and August 15, 1979, resulted “from the absence of the defendant because his location [was] unknown and the State [was] unable to determine his location by due diligence.”11 See Article 32A.01, supra, Section 4(4)(B).
We are also unpersuaded by the State’s argument that appellant’s use of a new alias, “Robert Moore,” and misstatement of his date of birth when arrested on an unrelated charge, alone establish that appellant *416was “attempting to avoid .. . prosecution,” so as to excuse the State’s lack of preparedness under Section 4(4)(A) of the Act. While such an assertion might have been well taken if supported by evidence adduced in the trial court, advancement of such a contention for the first time on appeal seeks a disposition from this Court based on purest speculation.12 Thus, the State likewise failed to meet its burden of establishing that the delay was occasioned by appellant’s attempt “to avoid prosecution” rendering his whereabouts unknown to the State. Article 32A.02, supra, Section 4(4)(A).
Our review of the record reveals no written findings of fact or conclusions of law on which the trial court based its denial of appellant’s motion. Nor did the trial court announce oral findings at the time it made such ruling; the only comment contained in the record which might suggest the trial judge’s basis for the denial of the motion, was made during the hearing: that appellant “was in jail in December and copped out for a year in jail under an assumed name, and apparently nobody knew who he was until August.”
Having determined that the State failed to show either an exercise of due diligence to determine the location of appellant, or that appellant was attempting to avoid prosecution in this cause, I would hold appellant is entitled to relief.13 I would accordingly hold that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the indictment for failure to provide a speedy trial under the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act.
I would order the judgment of conviction reversed, the indictment dismissed and appellant discharged under the terms of Article 28.061, V.A.C.C.P.
To the decision of the panel majority doing otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
Before the court en banc.

. While the phrase quoted in the text is the characterization employed throughout the State’s brief on appeal, I recite the content of these announcements of ready verbatim here:
“Comes now the State of Texas, through the undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and announces to the Court that the State is ready for trial in the above entitled and numbered cause. The State respectfully requests at least fourteen (14) days notice as to the date of trial so that subpoenaes may be requested and served upon the necessary witnesses.”
(All emphasis is supplied throughout by the writer of this opinion unless otherwise indicated.)

. Counsel’s reference, as cited, is to Article 25.01, V.A.C.C.P., which provides:
“In every case of felony, when the accused is in custody, or as soon as he may be arrested, the clerk of the court where an indictment has been presented shall immediately make a certified copy of the same, and deliver such copy to the sheriff, together with a writ directed to such sheriff, commanding him forthwith to deliver such certified copy to the accused.”

. On October 4, after the hearing on the motion to set aside the indictment, appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere upon a written stipulation of evidence, and the trial court assessed his sentence at six years. Appellant gave notice of appeal and filed a motion for new trial again urging his motion to set aside the indictment, which was overruled on October 15, 1979. After the record was completed and approved by the trial court counsel for both the State and defense were so advised on April 10, 1980.
Thereafter, apparently sua sponte, the trial court entered an order granting a new trial on May 6, 1980; this order recited that appellant’s previous plea of nolo contendere had been entered involuntarily due to his having been “misled to the extent that he was advised that by entering [such a plea], he could preserve his appellate rights with regard to an issue arising under the Texas Speedy Trial Act, when that was an inaccurate statement of law.” See intervening opinion in Luna v. State, 602 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) [wherein on State’s motion for rehearing a majority of the Court en banc relied on the panel opinions of Judge Douglas in Ramirez v. State, 590 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), construing Article 32A.02, § 3, supra, to provide that the entry of a guilty plea waives all rights under the Speedy Trial Act; and, Fleet v. State, 590 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (opinion withdrawn from bound volume of Southwestern Reporter), holding that because “a plea of nolo contendere is the equivalent to a plea of guilty,” entry of such a plea likewise waives all rights under the Act]. Accord Wooten v. State, 612 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).

. Hereinafter referred to as the Speedy Trial Act or the Act.

. April 11, 1979, was the 120th day after the complaint was filed on December 12, 1978.

. This opinion, having been originally proposed for majority disposition of the case, but having failed to carry the day, should be read so that all references to “we” are intended as “I” or “I would.”

. Suffice it to say that it was fully acknowledged by the State that the prosecution was unaware of appellant’s availability for trial of the cause for over eight months after the complaint was filed. Thus, it is clear that the State was in no position to proceed to trial within that time. Compare Pate v. State, supra. Before a material issue arises as to the State’s entitlement to a statutory exclusion of time, the trial court must find, or the State must neces*414sarily concede, that it was not ready within the initial 120 day period while demonstrating that its posture in this regard has been due to something other than prosecutorial neglect.

. The record reflects that appellant was arrested and confined on December 2, 1978.

. Appellant claimed that he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, presumably a lesser offense, and was assessed a jail term; though the record before us does not clearly establish this, we may assume it is so because the record does reflect a punishment assessment of “one year.”

. The jail record, later introduced into evidence, over objection, as Defense Exhibit No. 1, verifies this testimony. While the jail card reflects that a “hold” was placed on appellant by the Houston Police Department for the offense of “escape,” there is no entry in the spaces provided for “date hold placed” and “date hold lifted.” The record also informs us that appellant was arrested for the offense of “escape,” sentenced to “20 days,” which sentence was to begin on “12-2-78,” in “CC5” (City Court No. 5), but does not reveal on what date appellant was tried in city court.

. We do not conclude that the State failed to employ due diligence, nor that due diligence would have avoided the delay. Our holding is merely based on the fact that the record is devoid of evidence on these issues and, thus, there is a failure of proof in support of the State’s position. See Pate v. State, supra; accord, United States v. Quillen, 468 F.Supp. 480 (E.D.Tenn.1978), aff'd mem., 588 F.2d 831 (6 CA 1978).

. Indeed, considering the presumption of innocence, Article 38.02, V.A.C.C.P.; V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 2.01, and that the constitutional function of an indictment has been held to be to give an accused “notice” of a prosecution against him, see Brasfield v. State, 600 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) (opinion on State’s motion for rehearing), we would be loath to embrace such a contention as a holding.

. The State has neither contended at trial nor on appeal that it is entitled to any statutory period of exclusion under the Act, other than that contained in Subsection (4) of Section 4, and I find none to be applicable.