BRANDON MIKHAIL HILL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Chief Justice Wright

Brandon Mikhail Hill waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a firearm.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003).   The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment and a $2000 fine.   In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and render judgment.   We affirm.   The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit our recitation of the facts.   We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.

In his sole point of error, appellant complains the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his case because it was not properly transferred to the court's docket.   The indictment in this case was returned in the 282nd Judicial District Court, but the record contains no order transferring the case to the 363rd Judicial District Court, where the case was heard and the judgment rendered.

A grand jury formed and impaneled by a district judge inquires “into all offenses liable to indictment,” and hears all the testimony available before voting on whether to indict an accused.  Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.09, 20.19 (Vernon 2005);  Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446, 448 (1987).   A grand jury is “often characterized as an arm of the court by which it is appointed rather than an autonomous entity.”  Dallas County Dist. Attorney v. Doe, 969 S.W.2d 537, 542 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.).   After the conclusion of testimony, a grand jury votes “as to the presentment of an indictment.”  Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.19.   Following presentment, an indictment is filed in a court with competent jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to hear the case.   See Hultin v. State, 171 Tex.Crim. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, 255 (1961).   In counties having two or more district courts, the judges of the courts may adopt rules governing the filing, numbering, and assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the courts' work they consider necessary or desirable to conduct the business of the courts.   See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.304 (Vernon 2004);  see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 74.093 (Vernon Supp.2009) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases).   Thus, a specific district court may impanel a grand jury, however, it does not necessarily follow that all cases returned by that grand jury are assigned to that court.   See Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. ref'd).

Here, the record shows the grand jury was impaneled in the 282nd Judicial District Court.   Following the return of appellant's indictment, the case was filed in the 363rd Judicial District Court.   Nothing in the record indicates this case was originally filed in or appeared on the trial docket of the 282nd Judicial District Court.   Because the 363rd Judicial District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant's case and render judgment, we overrule appellant's sole point of error.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE