Jeremiah M. Matthews v. State
530 S.W.3d 744
Tex. App.2017Background
- Appellant Jeremiah M. Matthews was charged with attempted capital murder; the complaint was assigned to the 182nd District Court, Harris County.
- An indictment was filed in the 182nd District Court but was signed by the grand jury foreman of the 179th District Court.
- Matthews pleaded guilty; the court conducted a punishment hearing and sentenced him to 45 years' confinement.
- On appeal Matthews argued the 182nd District Court lacked jurisdiction because the grand jury that presented the indictment was empaneled by the 179th District Court.
- The trial record contains no pretrial objection, motion to quash, or other challenge raised in the trial court to the assignment or presentment of the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction because indictment was presented by a different district court's grand jury | Matthews: Presentment by the 179th grand jury meant the 182nd had no jurisdiction; defect is jurisdictional and can be raised on appeal | State: All district courts in a county have concurrent jurisdiction; misassignment is procedural and must be raised at trial | Court: Indictment vested jurisdiction in the 182nd; any presentment/assignment irregularity is procedural and waived for failure to object at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 519 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (transfer/assignment within a county is a procedural matter, not jurisdictional)
- Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (grand jury empaneling court need not be the court that ultimately tries the case)
- Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (indictment filing vests jurisdiction in a court with authority to hear the case)
- Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (grand jury duties to inquire into indictable offenses and present indictments)
- Tamez v. State, 27 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000) (no jurisdictional defect when indictment empaneled by one district was filed in another)
- Mosley v. State, 354 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962) (rejecting jurisdictional challenge where defendant was tried in different district than empaneling court)
- Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (defect in charging instrument waived if not raised before trial)
- Martin v. State, 346 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (presentment of a written indictment vests jurisdiction; defects must be raised pretrial)