Court Opinion

ID: 9363545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:13:01.519896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:32.507448
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                        OF TEXAS
                                       NO. WR-94,310-01

                     EX PARTE COREY SHAWN BAVOUSETT, Applicant

                    ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
                      CAUSE NO. 26,081 IN THE 1A DISTRICT COURT
                                FROM TYLER COUNTY

       Per curiam.

                                            ORDER

       Applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (count one) and deadly

weapon in a penal institution (count two), and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.

Applicant did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX . CODE CRIM .

PROC. art. 11.07.

       In his application, Applicant alleges, among other things, that his indictment was defective.

Applicant contends that the location alleged in the indictment was the incorrect location and not

located within Tyler County, and his name was misspelled. The trial court recommends granting

relief on this ground and vacating Applicant’s conviction. We disagree.
                                                                                                      2

        “If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an

indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and

forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on

appeal or in any other post-conviction proceeding.” TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. art. 1.14(b); Studer v.

State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). A claim that the indictment was fundamentally

defective “may be cognizable in a writ of habeas corpus, but only if it alleges that the indictment is

so deficient that it fails to vest the trial court with jurisdiction.” Ex parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d 492,

502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Here, although the location of the offense alleged in the indictment

was incorrect, the correct location was located within Tyler County. Had Applicant objected to the

indictment prior to pleading guilty, the indictment could have been amended to allege the proper

location of the offense and to correct the spelling of Applicant’s first name. The defects that

occurred here are defects of form or substance, and Applicant should have objected prior to pleading

guilty. Because he did not, and his other claims are without merit, relief is denied.

Filed: January 11, 2023
Do not publish