Derosier, Ex Parte Andre
PD-1510-15
| Tex. | Dec 7, 2015Background
- Andre Derosier pleaded guilty in Denton County after the State amended an indictment: felony counts were dismissed and a misdemeanor terroristic-threat charge (Class B at the time) was proceeded on in district court.
- The trial court and the parties later agreed the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the misdemeanor charge, but a conviction and judgment were entered (judgment reflects Class A).
- Derosier filed a habeas writ asserting the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that his conviction was void; the trial court found lack of jurisdiction but denied relief based on estoppel/illegal-leniency reasoning.
- The Second Court of Appeals held the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties; the conviction is voidable on that ground.
- The State sought discretionary review; Derosier (appellant here) filed this response urging denial of the State’s petition, arguing established Texas precedent bars estoppel where subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Derosier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who agreed to plead to an offense not actually a lesser-included offense may later attack the bargained judgment on subject-matter jurisdiction grounds | The State: No; because district court had prior jurisdiction over the originally indicted felony and parties agreed to the lesser charge after jurisdiction was established; estoppel/waiver or doctrines protecting plea bargains should bar the claim | Derosier: Yes; subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement or estoppel; where the amended indictment charged only a misdemeanor for which the district court had no statutory jurisdiction, the conviction is void and may be attacked | The Court of Appeals: Held defendant may challenge—subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement; conviction void without jurisdiction |
| Whether estoppel, invited error, or related doctrines bar a collateral attack on jurisdiction after a plea | The State: Doctrines like estoppel, invited error, and related equitable doctrines should prevent collateral attack to protect plea bargaining and finality | Derosier: Those doctrines do not apply to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is an absolute, non-waivable systemic requirement; statutory transfer procedure (art. 21.26 / art. 4.05) was not followed by the court | Held: Jurisdictional challenges are immune to estoppel; parties cannot validate a court’s lack of statutory jurisdiction by agreement |
| Whether the remedy was to treat this as an illegal sentence case (Rhodes/Murray) or as a jurisdictional defect | The State: Characterizes case as analogous to illegal-sentence or estoppel decisions, limiting post-plea attacks | Derosier: Distinguishes illegal-sentence line—here the conviction itself is void because court lacked authority; Rhodes-type analysis inapplicable | Held: Distinct—this is a jurisdictional defect making the judgment void, not an ordinary sentencing error |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App.) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement)
- Ex parte Armstrong, 8 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928) (courts act without validity absent constitutional/statutory authority)
- Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (jurisdiction vests only upon filing of a valid indictment)
- Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders judgment void)
- Murray v. State, 302 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discusses plea withdrawal and estoppel but assumed jurisdictional issues)
- Teal v. State, 230 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (indictment must be capable of being construed as charging an offense for which the court has jurisdiction)
- Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (distinguishes illegal-sentence analysis where court otherwise had jurisdiction)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (subject-matter jurisdiction is independent and not forfeitable)