Robert Gonzales Rodriguez v. State, 10-15-00371-CR

Appellant Robert Gonzales Rodriguez was convicted for failing to register as a sex offender under article 62.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Before trial he moved to quash the indictment, arguing the underlying 1999 sexual-assault-of-a-child conviction was void because the senior visiting judge who presided then allegedly did not file her oath of office.
The trial court denied the motion to quash and convicted Rodriguez; the trial-court judgment mistakenly referenced a non‑existent Penal Code section instead of art. 62.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On appeal Rodriguez argued (1) the prior conviction was void for lack of judicial authority and thus the instant indictment failed, and (2) the evidence was insufficient because the underlying conviction was void.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the motion-to-quash de novo and found Rodriguez’s challenge required inquiry beyond the four corners of the indictment and was not timely raised in the prior case.
The court modified the judgment to cite the correct statute (art. 62.102, CCP) and affirmed the conviction in all other respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the prior judge allegedly failed to file her oath, rendering the underlying conviction void	Rodriguez: the 1999 conviction is void for lack of judicial authority, so the present indictment is defective	State: challenge requires collateral inquiry outside the indictment and was not timely raised in the prior case; defendant waived the complaint	Overruled — motion to quash failed because it required proof beyond the indictment and the defendant waived timely objection
Whether evidence was sufficient because the underlying conviction was void	Rodriguez: insufficiency follows if prior conviction is void	State: sufficiency challenge depends on the rejected jurisdictional claim; underlying conviction stands for purposes of this prosecution	Overruled — sufficiency argument premised on previously rejected void-conviction claim fails

State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (standard of review for motion to quash indictment is de novo)
State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (indictment must be judged from its four corners, not evidence outside it)
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (court of appeals may reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)
Wilson v. State, 944 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (proper method to challenge a judge’s authority is a timely objection or quo warranto; failure to do so waives complaint)
Keen v. State, 626 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (previous rule on collateral challenge to judge assignment discussed)
Archer v. State, 607 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (assignment-challenge procedures addressed)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (forfeiture of non‑fundamental rights if not raised at trial)
Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (timely objection gives court and prosecution notice and opportunity to correct procedural irregularities)
977 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (discusses when objections to judicial assignments must be raised)