Court Opinion

ID: 9382918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 06:09:08.834127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.247814
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 23, 2023

                                     S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-00639-CR

                CHRISTOPHER NATHAN FODOR, Appellant
                                V.
                    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F-1624865-Q

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                  Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Kennedy
                           Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      Christopher Nathan Fodor appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating his

guilt on a charge of aggravated assault and sentencing him to five years’

confinement. In a single issue, Fodor complains that his underlying plea of guilt was

not properly reviewed by the trial court following a hearing before a magistrate, and

his conviction is therefore void on its face.

      In February 2017, Fodor was charged by indictment with aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon. The record reflects that all of the following events occurred

on September 28, 2017: (1) Fodor signed a judicial confession to the offense as
alleged in the indictment; (2) entered a plea agreement (a) deferring adjudication of

his guilt, (b) placing him on community supervision for six years, and (c) waiving a

jury trial; and (3) waived the right to have his case heard by a district judge and

requested referral to a magistrate. The district judge referred the case to a magistrate

who issued findings, conclusions, and recommendations in conformity with the plea

bargain agreement. On the same page that the magistrate dated and signed the

findings, conclusions, and recommendations, the district judge signed a two-

paragraph order adopting the actions of the magistrate but did not separately date

that signature. The district judge signed an order deferring an adjudication of

Fodor’s guilt and placing him on community supervision for six years.

      In May 2018, the State filed a motion to revoke probation or proceed with an

adjudication of guilt alleging Fodor had violated multiple conditions of his

community supervision. The State subsequently withdrew the motion to revoke, and

the trial court, in June 2018, entered an order continuing Fodor on probation. In

August 2020, the State again filed a motion to revoke, and Fodor was again

continued on probation by court order in January 2021. This process repeated itself

with the State filing a motion to revoke in April 2021 and the trial court continuing

Fodor on probation in May 2021.

      Following another motion to revoke, Fodor entered an open plea of true to the

allegations in the State’s motion to revoke. On May 13, 2022, the trial court, based

upon a plea agreement on the motion to revoke or adjudicate, revoked Fodor’s

                                          –2–
community supervision and entered judgment adjudicating Fodor’s guilt and

sentencing him to five years’ confinement. This appeal followed.

      In a single issue, Fodor argues his underlying guilty plea was not properly

reviewed by the trial court following the hearing before the magistrate, rendering his

subsequent conviction void on its face. In making this argument, Fodor relies on the

fact that the signature of the district judge adopting the actions of the magistrate was

undated. Appellant asserts the lack of a date “means two things: the judge did not

properly note her review of the magistrate’s findings, and failing proper review, it

appears for the record that the magistrate, who was not a district judge, presided over

[Fodor]’s guilty plea.”

      A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may

raise issues relating to the original plea proceeding, such as evidentiary sufficiency,

only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication community supervision is first

imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661–62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The

exception to this rule is that a defendant may challenge the original order at the time

his probation is revoked when the complaint, if sustained, would render the judgment

void. Deifik v. State, 58 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d).

This is because a void judgment is subject to collateral attack at any time. Id.

      As this Court has previously held, the trial court’s failure to review and adopt

the magistrate judge’s actions before signing the order placing the defendant on

probation is not fundamental error that would render the judgment void. Christian

                                          –3–
v. State, 865 S.W.2d 198, 201 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, pet ref’d). Here, the record

shows the district court judge did sign the order adopting the magistrate’s actions,

and the date of the order appears on the same page beside the magistrate’s signature.

Because appellant did not timely appeal from the original order placing him on

probation, and his challenge is not a permissible collateral attack on that order, we

have no jurisdiction over appellant’s complaint. Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at 662;

Christian, 865 S.W.2d at 201.

      We therefore overrule Fodor’s issue and dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

                                           /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                           BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                           JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
220639F.U05

                                        –4–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER NATHAN                          On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
FODOR, Appellant                            District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. F-1624865-Q.
No. 05-22-00639-CR         V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                            Goldstein. Justices Carlyle and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                Kennedy participating.

      Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered March 23, 2023

                                      –5–