Court Opinion

ID: 9765466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:03:31.089474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:10.236463
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Justice,
dissenting.
I concur with the majority in their disposition of appellant Armstrong’s insufficiency of the evidence point of error. I also concur with the majority’s conclusion that under this record the State’s cross-appeal cannot be sustained under article 44.-01(a)(1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision that the State cannot maintain its cross-appeal under article 44.01(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
The majority concludes that because trial of the primary offense was before the court, the court, as the trier of fact, decided only a fact question. Upon determination of this fact question, the trial court concluded that the second enhancement paragraph was not true. In my view, this conclusion is erroneous. The decision of the trial court when it ruled on appellant’s objection to the State’s offer of proof of the prior conviction as alleged in the indictment’s second paragraph was a ruling of law. As stated by the majority, appellant objected to the State’s offer of evidence on the ground that the judgment of the enhancement conviction was void because there was no statement of facts of the magistrate’s hearing before the presiding judge who signed the judgment in the underlying case. It is clear from the record that appellant relies on Omura v. State, 730 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d), as the basis of this objection. The State argued that the conviction was not void for lack of a statement of facts and relied on this Court’s opinion in Allen v. State, 748 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, no pet.).
In ruling on the admissibility of the State’s evidence to prove the enhancement paragraph, the court stated:
The court grants the defendant’s motion regarding paragraph four of the indictment. The court finds as a matter of fact that the Judge of the criminal district court did not have before him any facts heard by the magistrate and therefore could not have properly reviewed and approved of that finding. The court makes these findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial court then made the following entry on the docket sheet:
August 23, 1988.
Second and third paragraphs of the indictment presented. Plea of Evidence presented. Finding of fact by the Court that the conviction alleged in paragraph 2 of the indictment was heard by a magistrate (selected pursuant to Article 1918C CCP). That there was no statement of facts and nothing before the district judge in order to review the action of the magistrate. Finding as a matter of law that the conviction could *945not be used for enhancement purposes. These findings are made beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is clear from this record that the trial court made a ruling regarding whether the judge in the underlying conviction used for enhancement purposes complied with the requirements of the Dallas County Magistrate’s Act. Tex.Gov’t.Code Ann. § 54.501 et seq. (Vernon 1988). The trial court held that the judge in the underlying case used for enhancement purposes failed to comply with the Act in derogation of sections 54.-311 and 54.312 because the judge could not have properly reviewed the actions of the magistrate. See Omura, 730 S.W.2d at 767-68 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. ref’d); Tex.Gov’t.Code Ann. §§ 54.311, 54.312 (Vernon 1988). In my view, the question of whether a judge has complied with the requirements of the Dallas County Magistrate’s Act is one of law. See Loftin v. State, 624 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1981, pet. ref’d); Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 104(a); Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 36.13 (Vernon 1988).
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, section 44.01(c), permits the State to appeal rulings on questions of law if the defendant is convicted in the case and appeals the judgment. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(c) (Vernon Supp.1989). Because the defendant in the present case was convicted and is appealing, and because the issue of whether the underlying enhancement conviction was void is a question of law, the State’s cross-appeal should be considered on its merits.
In its first crosspoint, the State contends that the trial court erred in allowing an impermissible collateral attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant’s prior conviction in the second enhancement paragraph. I agree. In this case, the trial court held that because the evidence offered by the State as proof of the enhancement paragraph reflected that the presiding judge did not have a statement of facts before him, the judge could not have properly reviewed and approved of the magistrate’s findings. The trial judge held that because of that fact, as a matter of law, the second paragraph conviction could not be used for enhancement purposes. In my view, this conclusion is erroneous, and this Court’s decision in Allen v. State, 748 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, no pet.) controls. That is, that a statement of fact is not absolutely required in order for a district judge to adequately review the actions of the magistrate. See Allen, 748 S.W.2d at 18. The trial court’s ruling that the prior conviction was void on that ground is erroneous as a matter of law.
This conclusion does not end the inquiry because this Court cannot reverse if the prior conviction was inadmissible for any reason, even though the trial court may have given an erroneous reason for the exclusion of the evidence. See Sewell v. State, 629 S.W.2d 42, 45 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). In my view, the evidence was not excludable for any reason because appellant’s attack on its admissibility amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the underlying conviction. See Wolfe v. State, 560 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Williams v. State, 767 S.W.2d 868, 871 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, pet. ref’d).
I would sustain the State’s first cross-point and reverse and remand for further proceedings pursuant to article 44.29 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Ex parte Klasing, 738 S.W.2d 648, 650-51 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Kingsley v. State, 744 S.W.2d 191, 196 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, pet. granted); Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 44.29 (Vernon 1988).