OPINION ON REHEARING
Appellant, Damien Lamont Henderson, moved for rehearing of our June 29, 2Ó17 opinion. We deny the motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion and judgment, and issue this opinion and judgment in their stead. The disposition remains unchanged.
Appellant was found guilty of felony murder and the trial court assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. In a single issue, appellant argues that the trial court’s judgment is void because no trial court ever acquired jurisdiction over him. We affirm.
Background
Apрellant was indicted for felony murder, with the underlying offense of injury to a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(3) (West 2011), § 22.04 (West Supp. 2016). The indictment, identified as cause number 1426434, was delivered to the Harris County District Clerk, and filed in the county’s 177th District Court. The indictment reflects that it was issued by “[t]he duly organized Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas” and signed by the “Forеman of the Grand Jury.” Above,the foreman’s signature is a stamp, “Foreman 182nd.” . ; •.
The trial court proceedings were conducted in the 177th District Court. After a bench trial before the 177th District Court, the court convicted appellant of murdering his girlfriend’s thirteen-month old son, as alleged in the indictment, and assessed his punishmеnt at life imprisonment.
Discussion
In his sole appellate issue, appellant argues that the district court that tried and convicted him of murder, the 177th District Court, nevеr acquired jurisdiction over him because a grand jury from the 182nd District Court presented the indictment to the 177th District Court, Appellant further contends that the judgment is vоid because the 177th District Court did not have jurisdiction over him. The State argues that appellant waived this issue because he is challenging a procedural deficiency with respect to the indictment, and therefore, he was required to raise this issue in a timely plea to the jurisdiction in the trial cоurt to preserve this issue for appellate review.
Article V, section 12 of the Texas Constitution defines an indictment as “a written instrument presented tо a court by a grand jury charging a person with the commission of an offense.” Tex. Const, art. V, § 12(b). Article 20.21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is entitled “Indictment Presented,” provides: “When the indictment is ready to be presented, the grand jury shall through their foreman, deliver the indictment to the judge or clerk of the сourt.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 20.21 (West 2015). “An indictment is considered as ‘presented’ when it has been duly acted upon by the grand jury and received by the court.” Id. art. 12.06. Thus, presentment occurs when the indictment “is delivered to either ‘the judge or clerk of the court/ ” State v. Dotson,
Criminal district courts have original jurisdiction in felony criminal cases. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 4.05 (West 2015). In counties having two or more district courts, such as Harris County, “the district judges may adopt rules governing the filing and numbering of cases, the assignment of cases for trial, and the distribution of the work of the courts as in their discretion they consider necessаry or desirable for the orderly dispatch of the business of the courts.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.024 (West Supp. 2016); see id. § 74.093 (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases). Therefore, although a .specific district court may impanel a grand jury, it does not necessarily follow that all cases returned by that grand jury are assigned to that court. See Bourque v. State,
The 177th and 182nd District Courts are both criminal district courts in Harris County, they share the same court clerk—the Harris County District Clеrk— and they have original jurisdiction in felony criminal cases. The record reflects that the indictment against appellant was delivered, or presented, to the Harris County District Clerk, as demonstrated by the clerk’s office’s original file stamp, and it was filed in the county’s 177th District Court. See Dotson,
The fact that appellant was indicted by a grand jury impaneled by one court and tried in аnother court without a motion to transfer the case to the trial court is, at best, a procedural issue. “Any procedural challenge to the transfer of a case within a county is ... determined and resolved by proper application of local rules promulgated pursuant to constitutional and statutory authority; it is not a jurisdictional defect.” Davis v. State,
Although jurisdictional defеcts in indictments may be challenged for the first time on appeal, procedural deficiencies with regard to such indictments may not. See Cook v. State,
Appellаnt does not dispute that he did not object to the indictment or the proceedings in the trial court. Appellant’s failure to do so prior to trial constitutes a waiver of his right to challenge any procedural irregularity. See Lemasurier,
We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.