Court Opinion

ID: 9900029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 10:14:35.543069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:58.611880
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00089-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

CHAUNTE BATES-HAYNES,                          §      APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLANT

V.                                             §      COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       §      HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Chaunte Bates-Haynes appeals her conviction for criminal mischief.        In two issues,
Appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction and she was unreasonably seized without a
warrant. We affirm.

                                        BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by complaint and information with criminal mischief in an
amount of at least $100 but less than $750. Appellant was not arrested. The County Clerk
notified Appellant of the arraignment via mail. Appellant appeared and was appointed counsel.
Subsequently, Appellant filed a motion to suppress alleging that “no probable cause exists for
[her] arrest and continued detention.” The trial court denied the motion after conducting a
hearing.
       At trial, Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. After
the jury found Appellant “guilty,” Appellant and the State reached an agreement on punishment.
The trial court assessed punishment in accordance with the agreement at 180 days confinement
probated for twelve months and a $100 fine. This appeal followed.
                                          JURISDICTION
       In her first issue, Appellant urges the complaint and information have technical
deficiencies, which divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Specifically, Appellant contends that the
information does not include a date on which it was sworn; therefore, she argues that it is
impossible to determine whether the complaint was sworn to prior to presentation of the
information.
       A party cannot complain about a defect, whether of substance or form, for the first time
on appeal unless the complaint is that the charging instrument was so deficient that it failed to
confer jurisdiction upon the court to render any conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 1.14(b) (West 2005); Nam Hoai Le v. State, 963 S.W.2d 838, 843 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 1998, pet. ref’d). A court is vested with jurisdiction upon presentment of an indictment
or information. TEX. CONST. art. V § 12; Nam Hoai Le, 963 S.W.2d at 843. A charging
instrument is considered sufficient to convey jurisdiction so long at it charges a specific person
with the commission of an offense which may be understood from the face of the charging
instrument. Nam Hoai Le, 963 S.W.2d at 843; see Duron v. State, 956 S.W.2d 547, 549–50
(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). If the charging instrument meets these requirements, jurisdiction is
vested in the court upon its presentment. TEX. CONST. art. V § 12.
       Here, Appellant makes no complaint about the sufficiency of the information, which, we
note, charges Appellant with the offense of criminal mischief. Furthermore, Appellant did not
file a motion to set aside the information in the trial court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
27.02 (West 2006).      Therefore, Appellant may not complain of any other defects in the
information for the first time on appeal. See id. art. 1.14(b); Nam Hoai Le, 963 S.W.2d at 843.
       However, even had Appellant objected to the information at trial, it is not defective. An
information is a written statement filed and presented on behalf of the State by the district or
county attorney, charging the defendant with an offense which may by law be prosecuted and
must comport with the requisites of Article 21.21. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 21.20,
21.21 (West 2009). The information may be sworn to before the district or county attorney who,
for that purpose, has the power to administer the oath, or it may be made before any officer
authorized by law to administer oaths. Id. art. 21.22 (West 2009). An information is sufficient if,
among other things, the time mentioned therein is a date anterior to the filing of the information,
and the offense does not appear to be barred by limitation. Id. art. 21.21(6). An information

                                                 2
shall not be presented until a complaint, an affidavit made by a credible person charging the
defendant with an offense, has been filed therewith. Id. art. 21.22. A complaint is a sworn
allegation charging an accused with the commission of an offense and must substantially satisfy
the requisites of Article 45.019, including the requirement that the complaint state the date the
offense was committed as definitely as the affiant is able to provide.                         Id. arts. 45.018(a),
45.019(a)(5) (West 2018).
        The record reflects that the complaint and information were filed together. Absent
evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the complaint was filed before the information.
Kaspar v. State, 376 S.W.2d 358, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964). Furthermore, the information
was filed on August 10, 2022, and the alleged offense occurred on April 7, 2022. Therefore, the
date of the information’s filing is after the date the offense was alleged to occur. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 21.21(6). And the information otherwise complies with Article 21.21.
Therefore, we overrule Appellant’s first issue. 1

                                           UNREASONABLE SEIZURE
        In her second issue, Appellant asserts she was unreasonably seized. On this issue,
Appellant’s brief lacks citation to any legal authorities. In addition, the entirety of her argument
on unreasonable seizure is as follows:

        Appellant was subjected to unreasonable seizure when she was brought before the trial court when
        no warrant was issued for her arrest via a magistrate’s determination of probable cause. “If the
        court will take judicial notice of the file, she’s not on bond, she hasn’t been arrested, so there’s no
        evidence that’s been seized illegally from an arrest”.

(Record citations omitted).

        An appellate brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made,
with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). An appellant
waives an issue on appeal if he fails to adequately brief that issue by not providing supporting
arguments, substantive analysis, and appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.
Chaves v. State, 630 S.W.3d 541, 555 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (citing
Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878, 896–97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d

        1
          Appellant also includes a single line of argument that the complaint is not attested to by the county
attorney. However, because the complaint was signed by “Sam Hicks, County Attorney/Assistant County
Attorney,” Appellant’s argument is without merit.

                                                          3
661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Cardenas v. State, 30 S.W.3d 384, 393 (Tex. Crim. App.
2000) (defendant inadequately briefed complaint where he neglected to present argument with
citation to appropriate authority)); see also Ray v. State, 176 S.W.3d 544, 553 n.7 (Tex. App.–
Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d).
         As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has emphasized, an appellate court has no
obligation to construct and compose issues, facts, and arguments with appropriate citations to
authorities and the record for the appellant. See Wolfe v. State, 509 S.W.3d 325, 343 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2017); Busby, 253 S.W.3d at 673. A brief that fails to apply the law to the facts does
not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and presents nothing for our review.
See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Because Appellant failed
to comply with the requirements of Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, she
waived her complaint. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.

                                                  DISPOSITION
         Having overruled Appellant’s first issue and determined that her second issue is waived,
we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                                GREG NEELEY
                                                                   Justice

Opinion delivered November 15, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          4
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        NOVEMBER 15, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00089-CR

                                   CHAUNTE BATES-HAYNES,
                                          Appellant
                                             V.
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                          Appellee

                            Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2
                    of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2022-0567CCL2)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                        It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

                    Greg Neeley, Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.