The State of Texas v. Gerson Daniel Carrillo
08-24-00239-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2025Background
- A grand jury in El Paso, empaneled by a district court, indicted Gerson Daniel Carrillo and 140 others for Class B misdemeanor riot offenses connected to April 12, 2024 events.
- The indictments were filed directly with the El Paso County Clerk, assigned cause numbers for a county court at law, and did not bear any district court file stamps or numbers.
- Carrillo filed a plea to the jurisdiction in the county court, arguing it lacked authority due to improper indictment filing and transfer.
- The State obtained a district court order purporting to certify and transfer the indictments to county court, but the record did not show proper filing or case creation in district court.
- The county court held hearings and ultimately dismissed the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, prompting the State to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the case properly transferred to county court after indictment? | State: Procedures sufficed, transfer order remedied any procedural defects. | Carrillo: Indictment never properly filed in district court, so transfer was invalid and jurisdiction lacking. | No, procedures not obeyed; jurisdiction not invoked. |
| Does a procedural deficiency in transfer defeat jurisdiction? | State: Any defect is procedural, not jurisdictional, and should not warrant dismissal—county court could re-transfer. | Carrillo: Defect is jurisdictional and requires dismissal if challenged before trial. | Defect is jurisdictional; dismissal required if promptly challenged. |
| Remedy for defects in transfer procedure | State: County court should re-transfer or allow correction, not dismiss. | Carrillo: Only remedy is dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissal is only proper remedy where no jurisdiction exists. |
| Is the county court's dismissal order appealable by the State? | State: Order dismisses prosecution on indictment, making it appealable. | Carrillo: Not a final order; State can re-indict, so it's not appealable. | Order is appealable; State has right to appeal the dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dunbar, 297 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Jurisdiction is an absolute systemic requirement; court has no power to act without it)
- Jenkins v. State, 592 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (Proper filing of a valid indictment or information is required to invoke criminal jurisdiction)
- State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (State may appeal any trial court order effectively terminating prosecution in favor of defendant)
- State v. Richardson, 383 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (Appealability turns on whether order precludes prosecution under the indictment at issue)
- State v. Plambeck, 182 S.W.3d 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (State can appeal trial court rulings that impede prosecution on the charging instrument chosen by the State)
- Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (A lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction deprives a court of authority to act)
- Ex parte Edone, 740 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (Describes Texas grand jury process and presentment requirements)
- Ex parte Jones, 682 S.W.2d 311 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (District court lacks jurisdiction over misdemeanor indictment; must transfer such indictment)
- Harris v. State, 565 S.W.2d 66 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (District court must transfer misdemeanor indictments to appropriate court)