State v. Rhinehart
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 327
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Rhinehart was charged with aggravated robbery in juvenile court for an offense committed before his 17th birthday.
- After Rhinehart turned 18, the State moved to transfer the case to criminal court; the transfer hearing occurred, and a waiver/transfer order was entered.
- Rhinehart challenged the transfer based on the State’s asserted due-diligence in proceeding in juvenile court before Rhinehart’s eighteenth birthday.
- The juvenile court waived its jurisdiction and transferred Rhinehart to criminal court; Rhinehart was indicted for aggravated robbery.
- In criminal court, Rhinehart moved to quash the indictment, arguing the transfer was improper; the district court granted the motion.
- The court of appeals reversed in part, and this Court granted discretionary review to address issues including whether the criminal court had authority to set aside the transfer order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to set aside transfer | Rhinehart asserts the criminal court had power to set aside the transfer order. | State contends no authority to set aside the transfer order; the issue is not presented here. | Issue not presented; transfer order not set aside in this case. |
| Preservation of appellate objections | Rhinehart argues the State waived issues by failing to raise them in the trial court. | State contends preservation was not required for certain grounds or that issues were properly raised on appeal. | State failed to preserve the challenge to the indictment on the asserted ground; appropriate to sustain Rhinehart's first ground. |
| Effect of due-diligence ruling on jurisdiction | Transfer validity should be reviewable because due-diligence findings affect jurisdiction. | Transfer validity does not automatically divest criminal court of jurisdiction absent a proper remand. | The court declined to decide this to the extent it would require setting aside the transfer; not addressed as dispositive here. |
| Indictment quash grounds | Indictment should be quashed if transfer was invalid or due-diligence was lacking. | Indictment quash not proper on the grounds alleged; the trial court erred in recognizing due-diligence as a basis. | Appellee's first ground sustained; the indictment quash was appropriate; State may reindict. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Klima, 934 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (standing/defendant burden on appeal when defendant bears burden to prove claim)
- State v. Steelman, 93 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (burden shifts to State when defendant proves a challenge to validity)
- State v. Eaves, 800 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (pre-trial motion to set aside indictment—grounds beyond enumerated statutes)
- Sanchez v. State, 120 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (error in charging; preservation and timely objection required)
- Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (preservation and permitting party to raise new theories on appeal)
- Rosenbaum v. State, 910 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (indictment testing on its face; extrinsic evidence not admitted to alter indictment validity)
- Ford v. State, 158 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (burden shifting in Fourth Amendment suppression context)