Davis v. State
519 S.W.3d 251
Tex. App.2017Background
- Frederick Anthony Davis pleaded guilty to aggravated assault while evading arrest and pleaded "true" to one enhancement paragraph; punishment was not recommended by the parties.
- The indictment (cause no. 1305212) was returned by the 178th District Court grand jury but filed as a refile in the 184th District Court, which had an earlier related complaint (cause no. 1304960).
- The 184th District Court conducted the plea, ordered a pre-sentencing investigation (PSI), admitted the PSI at punishment, and assessed 17 years’ confinement.
- The PSI showed Davis had a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication for burglary of a habitation, initially placed on probation, later revoked, and resulting in commitment to juvenile detention.
- The trial court also assessed a $40 statutory clerk’s fee under Article 102.005.
- On appeal Davis argued (1) lack of jurisdiction because the grand jury sat in a different district court, (2) the 17-year sentence exceeded the statutory range because the juvenile adjudication could not enhance, and (3) the $40 clerk’s fee is a facially unconstitutional tax.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over indictment returned by grand jury of another district court | The 184th lacked jurisdiction because indictment was returned by the 178th grand jury and must be heard in the 178th | State: district courts in same county may accept/assign indictments; jurisdiction may be raised on appeal | Court held 184th had jurisdiction; intra-county bench exchanges and local assignment rules permit filing/hearing in 184th |
| Use of juvenile adjudication to enhance sentence | Juvenile adjudication is not a felony conviction and cannot enhance to widen range to 2–20 years; without enhancement 17 years is outside 2–10 range | State: adjudication resulting in commitment counts as a final felony conviction for enhancement under then-applicable Penal Code §12.42(f) | Court held juvenile commitment qualified as a prior felony conviction; enhancement valid and 17-year sentence within enhanced range |
| Failure to object to indictment form re: enhancement | The plea and record do not support enhancement as charged because adjudication differed from indictment allegation | State: Davis pleaded "true" to enhancement and PSI supports prior adjudication and commitment | Court held Davis's plea and evidence supported the enhancement; no unlawful sentence |
| Constitutionality of $40 clerk’s fee (Article 102.005) | Fee is a facially unconstitutional tax because revenues might be spent for nonstatutory purposes | State: statute’s purposes are legitimate criminal-justice uses; facial challenge requires showing no circumstances render statute constitutional | Court held fee is not facially unconstitutional under Peraza; must consider statutory purposes, not speculative spending |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (jurisdictional defects in indictments may be raised on appeal)
- Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (role and powers of grand juries)
- Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (district impaneling grand jury is not necessarily assigned all indictments returned by that grand jury)
- Ex parte Dobbs, 978 S.W.2d 959 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (subsequent proceedings and court assignment not limited by initial bond condition or grand jury origin)
- Peraza v. State, 467 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (facial challenge to statutory court-fee requires showing statute itself is unconstitutional; courts consider only statutory purposes when assessing validity)