Beason, Gary Don
WR-42,787-03
| Tex. App. | Feb 2, 2015Background
- Gary Don Beason, a convicted defendant (No. CR21120), filed a habeas/collateral challenge alleging the indictment lacked statutorily required clerk certification and sufficient notice, denying due process and impairing his ability to prepare a defense.
- Beason says he was not served with the State's response to his habeas filing until months after it was filed, prompting a motion to rebut the State’s response and an explanation for tardiness.
- At trial-level proceedings the State moved to strike language from the indictment (removing "being the identical person named in the information"); the trial court granted the motion and ordered the indictment physically changed to reflect the stricken language.
- Beason argues the amendment/striking occurred without proper notice or a valid clerk certification under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 25.01, and that the record does not support the claimed notice/hearing; he contends this is jurisdictional and can be raised collateraly and/or via ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- The habeas docket indicates a dismissal notation (MOTION DISMISSED DATE: 2/4/15). The filings discuss preservation rules (motions to quash/dismiss), Aguilar’s standard for fundamental defects, and prior Texas Court of Criminal Appeals authority on notice and indictment defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment provided statutorily sufficient notice because it lacked clerk certification | Beason: indictment not certified per Art. 25.01; uncertified document could have been fabricated; insufficient notice voids jurisdiction | State: challenges to form/substance of indictment are not jurisdictional if not raised timely; State implicitly relied on record copies and amendments | Trial record shows the State was allowed to amend/strike language; habeas motion was dismissed (notation: MOTION DISMISSED 2/4/15). The court granted the State’s motion to strike language from the indictment. |
| Whether an amendment/striking of indictment language occurred with proper notice/hearing to defendant | Beason: he was not notified of amendment/hearing and first learned at pretrial; absence of notice violated due process and motion-to-quash preservation rules | State: filed motion to amend and represented there was notice and a hearing; argued no prejudicial variance in copies | The trial court ordered the striking of specified language after notice and hearing (order entered March 2011). Habeas relief was not granted. |
| Whether appellate forfeiture/waiver bars collateral review of indictment defects | Beason: appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the indictment/notice defects on direct appeal, so collateral review should be permitted | State: cites Ex parte Clore and Teal to argue defects must be raised before trial or on direct appeal and may be forfeited | Beason asserts ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel as gateway; the court docket shows habeas was dismissed, indicating no relief based on these claims. |
| Whether certain indictment defects are "fundamental" and can be raised anytime | Beason: cites Aguilar to argue some defects affecting jurisdiction are fundamental and not waived | State: distinguishes form/substance defects that are not jurisdictional | Aguilar and other CCA authorities were cited by Beason; the record reflects the court treated the procedural amendment as effective and did not grant habeas relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex Parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (waiver/forfeiture principles for collateral claims)
- Teal v. State, 230 S.W.3d 172 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (distinguishing form and substance defects; preservation and jurisdictional rules)
- Aguilar v. State, 846 S.W.2d 318 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (identifies fundamental indictment defects that affect jurisdiction and may be raised anytime)
- Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (textual statutory interpretation principles)
- Campbell v. State, 49 S.W.3d 874 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (clear statutory language controls judicial interpretation)
- Coit v. State, 808 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (statutory interpretation and limits on judicial modification)
- Ex Parte Davis, 412 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1967) (historical rule on statutory construction)
- Johnson v. State, 131 S.W. 1085 (Tex.Crim.App.1910) (early authority on indictment presentment and certified copies)
- Drumm v. State, 560 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (motion to quash for insufficient notice requires specificity)
- Jeffers v. State, 646 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (constitutional right to adequate notice may be invoked via motion to quash)