*1 judgments of the courts We affirm law the
below. We hold as a matter of are the owners of the uranium
Gefferts
the 6.77 acre tract.
RAY, Justice, dissenting. agree I respectfully
I dissent. with
majority that uranium is a mineral within meaning of ordinary and natural Also, agree majority I
word. by an
a mineral owner who takes title containing unspecific grant
instrument “oil, must gas and other minerals” com-
pensate the surface owner for the surface mining
destruction caused disagree majority I with the
minerals. apply compensation
that its decision to prospectively prevents the Mosers
rule receiving compensation
from for the de- of their surface estate. The ra-
struction underlying majority’s determi-
tionale apply prospectively
nation to this decision public’s reliance on our
is based on the inability to holdings public’s
former and the change in the law. Neither of
foresee reasons, however, applies to the case
these Thus, the new
at bar. I would hold that case, applies in this so
compensation rule compensa-
that the Mosers'are entitled the de-
tion from the mineral owners for estate.
struction of their surface KELLEY,
Carolyn Appellant, Kate
v. Texas, Appellee.
The STATE of
No. 1065-83. Texas, Criminal
En Banc.
July 1984.
105 Mitchell, Corbitt, Lawrence B. Richard J. Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Atty., Dist. Anne B. Weth- Weaver, Attys., erholt and R.K. Asst. Dist. Dallas, Huttash, Atty., Robert State’s Aus- tin, for the State.
OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW MILLER, Judge. granted petition
We the State’s for dis cretionary review order consider whether the Dallas Court of was holding correct Art. V.A.C.S. (Supp.1983),1 “Magistrates in entitled dis trict County,” courts in Dallas uncon was stitutionally applied under the facts State, instant Kelley case. v. 669 S.W.2d 1983). 329 (Tex.App. Dallas,— Because record include a does not notes, transcription reporter’s rely solely we must on the in- documents transcript cluded in the for re- information garding the instant transactions case. The record reflects was initially degree felony indicted the third property. offense The Criminal of theft District Court then transferred cause “Magistrate’s Court” further proceedings general under order entered by the Criminal District Court of Dallas County pursuant to Art. 1918c. Thereaft- er, were various form motions waivers V.A.C.C.P., 4.01, 1. Hereinafter referred to 1918c." ed Art. V.A.C.C.P. as "Art. validity No. on Art. of S.B. 781 and its effect in the instant cause were 2, 1982, today. Accordingly, April subsequent us held on to the enact- 1918c are not before 1981, 2546, Leg., p. only validity prior ment of Art. Acts 67th of Art. the enact- 1918c 678, 31, 1981, Aug. prior ch. eff. ment of 781 will be in this S.B. No. addressed 781, 1983, Leg., S.B. enactment of No. 68th Acts opinion. 1983, p. Aug. ch. eff. which amend- pro- this time denies the motion for on the same date. which executed and filed above). (see (2) bation These motions included: (4) by ap- judicial A confession executed plea bargain agreement A standard magistrate. pellant, approved indicating that the defend- with notations testify, plead would and would ant right appellant’s waiver of Another would be for a misde- that the conviction above), (see (2) signed jury which is trial *3 punishment con- meanor and the would be all, by including magistrate. the County in the Dallas for 180 finement Jail (6) magistrate permit- by An order the service; days nothing was with weekend jail confinement ting appellant to serve the regarding probation. noted on the form per re- consecutive weekends as her signed by appellant, the her The form was quest. counsel, attorney. district and the assistant (7) A included an en- docket sheet which (2) Another standard form within which signed by the try on the date of the trial attorney requested the assistant district magistrate. entry The consisted of numer- the reduce the offense to the court apparently findings which ous alternate A Misdemeanor lesser and included Class stamped prior the had been to offense; magistrate granted the theft by handwrit- plea and which were modified in the by affixing signature his motion entry perti- ten notes. The notes all prosecu- signature blank beside guilty plea, includ- occurrences at the nent document stat- tor. The second half of the punishment assessed. ing waivers and the following: ed application that the entry The also notes in the “Comes now the Defendant denied; probation was several other for cause, that he and would show above either form sentences which referenced in charged now stands the above cause fine left probation or a were blank. Offense, a Misdemeanor states with signed by A the district judgment said plea he will enter his of GUILTY to standard, “fill- judge appears which to be Court, proper open charge at the time guilty pleas form for criminal in-the-blank” attorney being present, and and with his County. reference is made to in Dallas No right by jury his to trial hereby waives taking of this magistrate’s role in the trial proceed the court to to and asks however, proper- plea. judgment, The does jury and to consent to herein without a to a ly recite that the offense was reduced by jury. Defendant’s waiver of trial misdemeanor; that the A Class prays that “Defendant further by jury, pled right of trial waived “his” and accept plea his of GUILTY Court guilty, stipulated and to the introduction Judgment pro- herein as proceed to enter evidence; approved of and that the court law, requests vided Defendant above, appellant guilty, found place probation him on that the Court days punishment at 180 confine- assessed in this cause.2 Jail, County in the Dallas ment appellant and her at- “[signatures of The consecutive weekends. served on torney] however, failed, to mention jury, foregoing of trial deny- “The Waiver or the order probation for application open court and Appeals made the Defendant ing the As the Court same. Attorney, stated, judg- his is con- in the presence in the “There is no indication the Court. ever con- approved to and that the district court sented ment pro- probation.” matter of application sidered the of Defendant (Denied). (Granted) hereby bation is judge gave appel The district magistrate]” “[signature of Art. appeal pursuant to permission to lant appeal, appellant’s On Order” V.A.C.C.P. preprinted A “Probation that Art. error asserted ground sole signed by opinion indicated. unless otherwise throughout thor of this emphasis the au- 2. All is added 1918c, was, whole, information, as a unconstitutional further as the court attempt by Legislature that it was an proper partic- deem delegate its authority constitutional ular circumstances of the case.” judiciary the creation of courts to the No act legally binding Const, Dallas in violation of Tex. magistrate’s unless and until the actions Appeals art. sec. 1. The Court of found adopted by referring are They court. that, claim, contrary appellant’s have no of their own and are unable indepen- 1918c did not create “courts” with any ruling. to enforce Accordingly, it is jurisdiction, simply dent authorized a apparent from the face of the statute that procedure whereby magistrates, acting as magistrates only agents' act as the surrogates judges, not are court, proper supervision district assist the district court in certain by the district court. We fail to see how limited matters.3 the article on its face is unconstitutional as agree We with the Court of on alleged by appellant. *4 this issue. Appeals holding. was correct in so power” “Judicial as envisioned step Court of went one The “(1) the power Constitution embraces The appellant further than requested the in his facts, (2) to hear power the to decide the brief, however, and found that the statute issues of fact made pleadings, the unconstitutionally applied was ap to the power the questions decide the of law pellant in the instant case. The court first involved, (4) power judgment to enter a 3, V.A.C.C.P., noted that Art. Sec. on the facts found in accordance with the provides in pertinent part that: court, (5) law as determined and the “The of the courts of the State to execute the or sen having original of Texas jurisdiction of Corbin, tence.” 553, Morrow v. 122 Tex. actions, appear when shall (1933); 62 S.W.2d quoted 645 the satisfaction of the court that the ends approval in State Farm Mutual Automo justice and the best interests of the bile Ins. v. Worley, Co. 346 S.W.2d public as well as the defendant will be (Tex.Civ.App.—El 1961). 409 Paso thereby may place subserved ... the de- Art. 1918c specifically limits the probation....” fendant on powers magistrates, of the prohibits The court then concluded: magistrates from performing those ul judicial functions, i.e., timate presiding over “that when the Constitution of the State a trial on the ruling merits or any on issue of Texas created district courts and vest- of law or fact of which the determination jurisdiction present ed of the case one thereon could result in require dismissal or courts, of those that Constitution re- Moreover, dismissal of the case.4 quires person that the occupying the of- 1918c, 7, specifically provides: Sec. judge fice of of that court—and not a
“(a) proceed- On conclusion of the surrogate appointed by judge— ings, magistrate shall transmit to the judicial concerning make the decisions referring papers relating court all justice,’ ‘the ends of and ‘the best inter- involved, together cases with the find- ests of public’ and ‘the best interests conclusions, ings, orders, recommenda- required by ... of the defendant’ Article tions, or other actions taken. Accordingly, 42.13 3. we hold that [Sec.]
“(b) referring may modify, under the Constitution of State of correct, reject, or only reverse action tak- Texas of the Criminal magistrate, en or recommit it for District Court of Dallas held the 3, supra. 3. Art. in sections 4 and sets out the 4. See footnote matters which be referred to a powers and the of the once crimi- Appendix. nal case has been so referred. See 108 requested record reporter that a court of Texas to the State
judicial power of 5(e). proceedings. Art. Unlike Sec. appel- on whether decision make a final Appeals, we that the surmise pursu- placed probation lant should application probation, for which was one- that this 3 and to Article 42.13 ant [Sec.] at the of a half one sentence bottom delegated to power cannot be judicial waivers, page actively not impermissi- form was surrogate. By virtue of pursued by appellant in fact Article 1918c and was application of ble solely by a probation part agreed plea bargain. denied not has been pow- holding judicial magistrate’s simply not then an- person denial of same was deny proba- of Texas to denial, er of the State again part plea other form that the ‘tribu- conclude tion.1 Thus we bargain. We construe the record as show- hearing ap- conducted the nal’ which ing that the did not consider the probation and de- pellant’s application application probation, simply fol- not was one finality that motion nied with negotiated plea arrangement. lowed the act.” to so constitutionally authorized at 332-333.
Kelley, 669 S.W.2d
Additionally, we find the Court of
Appeals erroneously applied presumption
7(c)
of section
unmindful
are not
"We
of irregularity
proper pre
instead of the
1918(c)
automatic
provides for
article
sumption
regularity
appellate
where,
magistrates
taken
approval
action
apply
courts
in the trial
it,
referring court
upon
retransmittal
correction,
'modification,
rejection,
State,
court. Schneider v.
no
109 (5) appearance graft per requirement Art. 1918c a se issue summons for the into adoption witnesses; that an affirmative trate’s actions be included in the record. witnesses; (6) examine conclusion, In we fail to see how Art. (7) hearing; swear witnesses for unconstitutionally applied in the 1918c was (8) findings make of fact on the evi- support The record does not instant case. dence; holding the con- Appeals’ the Court "of law; (9) conclusions of formulate trary. motions; (10) pretrial rule on ground Appellant’s sole of error is over- (11) orders, rulings, recommend the ruled. case; judgment to be made judgment of the Court of (12) regulate all in a hear- reversed and of the trial magistrates; ing before the court is affirmed. (13) do all acts and take all measures ONION, P.J., participating. not proper for the efficient performance required of the duties APPENDIX order of referral. provide: Secs. (b) may limit the The order of referral (a) having “Sec. 4. of a court magistrate and direct the powers of the magistrate appointed provided report only specific is- magistrate to may Act refer magistrate any sues, acts, or receive and particular do proceedings involving: criminal case for only. The order report on evidence (1) negotiated pleas before hearing, place for the set the time court; hearing, prescribe closing date for the (2) forfeitures; bond filing provide for a date for motions; pretrial findings. magistrate’s (4) postconviction writs of habeas cor- pus; “(c) appointed under this A trials; conducting examining *6 may not a case is referred Act to whom (6) any other matters that the law or fact ruling a on issue of enter proper, except deems thereon could of which the determination provided by (b) otherwise Subsection of require the dismiss- in dismissal or result this section. A prosecution. pending criminal al of a (b) may judge In no event a refer to a however, findings, may, make magistrate magistrate permitting a criminal case the conclusions, and recommendations magistrate preside to a over trial on the issues, scope of the order the such within merits, either jury. with or without a referral. (c) magistrate, To refer case to a the (d) may designate An order of referral judge shall issue an order of referral than case over proceedings for more one specifying magistrate.” the duties of the preside, may shall which the (a) Except “Sec. 5. provided by Sub- the to call the court’s direct (b) (c) section, sections of this docket, general pow- set forth magistrate to whom a case is referred authority and limitations of ers may: magistrate applicable to all such cases. (1) hearings; conduct evidence; (e) party Upon request hear the of either to considered, report- case to be a court (3) compel production of relevant by the court evidence; provided er shall be before the record the evi- admissibility rule on the trate.” dence;
110 781, 1983, supra. of S.B. No. effective date banc. en Before to warn that given a caveat must be Such JOINING THE JUDGMENT OF OPINION Article 1918c is today said what is about THE COURT ON PETITION STATE’S last word. not the FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW arising out of the in- Turning to issues CLINTON, Judge. dispose of first proceeding, we should stant Magistrate proceeding over which troubling matter that a threshold 2, presided April Howard Wilson was held is, Court of the Dallas That that State. long before of S.B. No. enactment 1982— aon theo- invalidated a conviction 204, Leg., p. 781. See Acts 68th ch. appeal, and did not advance on ry appellant August 29, effective 1983. provisions of “effectively negated” thereby purported 44.02, V.A.C.C.P., permit No. 781 to amend the S.B. that an Article in two re- State, Code of Criminal Procedure “only as to the says the appeal, First, spects. 2.09, Article “WHO ARE judge, exercise trial issues MAGISTRATES,” add to was amended to discretion, Ac- authorizes.” sound of his “officers,” designation its each of whom 44.02 re- Article cepting arguendo that meaning is “a within the appeal— issues quires specification of 1 Code,” following: seem does not that though language magistrates judges following timely “the note restrictive2 —we County of the district courts of Dallas signature Judge entry above docket preference give to criminal cases Chapman, viz: judges district courts criminal to Ct. that announced “Attys [named] County of Dallas ...” Def. & they had been retained 4.01, Second, appeal Article “WHAT COURTS chal- they perfect desired to JURISDICTION,” was constitutionality HAVE CRIMINAL Dal- lenging the listing amended to insert of which Although County Act. Magistrate las jurisdiction “courts have Bargain Plea was convicted under def cases,” following: Ct., in its discretion under Agreement, C.C.P., attys’ accepts No- magistrates appointed by “5. Article permission its Appeal grants of Dallas judges district courts tice of & give preference Appeal Bond set at County appeal. to criminal said pursue and the criminal district cases $1,000. courts of Dallas as set out in Judge”3 Chapman, Ron Legisla- Chapter Acts of the 67th ture, (Article Session, Regular permission Clearly judge granted the trial Statutes) 1918c, Vernon’s Texas Civil appeal order for his *7 full lawyers to mount a scale attack today Accordingly, held with whatever is against constitutionality Article of 1918c. constitutionality respect to the of Article Moreover, the Appeals Dallas Court of 2, 1918c, April it as of 1982—when stood addressed that broad issue. That “magistrates in for dis- providing alone spell theory out of did not unconstitu County in certain trict courts of Dallas tionality applied, of as 437, Article does cases,” caption see to S.B. No. 2546, appellate an court in Texas 1981, 678, not inhibit from Leg., p. ef- 67th ch. Acts 31, addressing perceives what it to be issue August fective 1981—is not conclusive in the of fundamental dimension case. constitutionality August of its after prescribed,” meaning the rules rules emphasis by hereinafter 1. All is added the writer elsewhere). (and Fourty opinion Chapter unless otherwise indicated. in four provides pertinent part 2. In Article 44.02 may deciphered precisely not have this hier- 3.I described that “before the defendant situation my reproduc- oglyphic, but I that am satisfied may prosecute appeal, his he must have ... captures its tion substance. permission the trial ...” This comes broadly “right appeal under after the stated
HI
(Tex.Cr.
skimpy
from the
State,
on its own surmises
presented single ground provi- Teague alludes to some of the Judge hearing “The tribunal which conducted got by into the record sions. The order judgment against appellant and entered supplemental transcript that an way of a pending improperly cause was consti- (signed by supplemental record approval of tuted violation Constitution judge) informs us was “deemed the trial expansively of Texas.” Under that State the court’s own motion.” appellant’s ground stated essence 4, 1982; it approval form is dated October that, constitutionally empow- contention is by filed the clerk of the was received and §V, Legislature by ered Article Appeals following day. Dallas Court of as may alone establish “such other courts brief, filed some two months Appellant’s cetera, necessary” it may deem et but is thereafter, later, and brief filed the State’s delegate responsi- not authorized to its own give For that its content scant attention. judges,” appellant ar- bility “to create as matter, appellate court. neither has either gues by done Article 1918c. For has been REFERRAL its own The ORDER OF part says its the State that all the statute effective October 1981. terms became procedure whereby the does is “authorize a is no indication that it has since been There judges may duly constituted district court or- particular modified nor that more them.” dispose of certain matters before the instant dealing specifically der The Dallas Court of held that short, In it is this case was ever entered. “magistrates appointed pursuant to Article general that delineated order judges, neither nor but 1918c are courts “pursuant Art. authority magistrates only perform individuals ... for instrumentalities of the V.A.C.S.” certain duties are, indeed, of Texas that true State purports order to refer “all cases courts.” indicted, such have been or have had not, however, expressly The court did duly indictment waived the defendant hold Article is 1918c constitutional.4 Magistrate’s of Dallas ... Court question That is not before us. following proceedings:” County ... for the pre- singularly then are two Listed appellant’s Rather it sustained sole (1) Negotiated pleas proceedings: scribed ground theory of error on the that her (2) Agreed guilty before the Court probation heard application for had been revocation; gener- are probation the others and denied “not constitution- tribunal here is with “ne- Patently al.5 our concern ally question authorized to so act.” That us, court.” majority gotiated pleas before the before but is answered hearings ‘‘Proceeding” paragraph opinion 5. is "such other In the first main of its 4. quotes ground of error and then im- the court court mediately be determined ... matters to, hearings announces the basis on which including, on bond but not limited sustained, judgment ground reversed forfeitures," will be "Proceeding" is "additional Though remanded. the status of and the cause magistrates Magistrate's to said orders of Referral is'discussed, opinion nowhere directing Magis- specific that said causes holding any finding Article there issues, only specific report do trate’s Court analysis face. Its is constitutional on its 1918c acts', *8 report evi- particular and or receive provisions cited statute and constitutional of the body already only.” indicated in the dence As leads the court to the conclusion and discussed opinion, of these latter authoriza- of this none surrogate a that "a is no more than in this cause. is in the record tions to court.” All the court did was for the district premises advanced examine of the contention by appellant; premises un- when the are found tenable, obviously merit. contention lacks Accordingly, join judgment I “proceeding” For that the order directs of all that a “shall exercise of the Court.6
powers in Art. enumerated 1918c Y.A.C.S. proper by as may be deemed and TEAGUE, Judge, dissenting. Magistrate, in such and addition ... such many It has said times that been innova- be, Magistrate hereby and is authorized to: experiments involving judiciary tive (a) plea; in judgment render a such admirable, may even understanda- be (b) defendant; sentence the ble, experiments stay but such must within (c) provide proba- of for such conditions imposed by the limitations the law. tion, restitution, including may as be Constitution, Art. Sec. of the Texas Magis- appropriate deemed provides part: judicial power in “The of trate, applicable; if Supreme in this State shall be vested one (d) approve such or documents waivers Court, Appeals, in in a Courts of Civil might appropriate; be Appeals, in Court of Criminal District (e) sign on of the and cause behalf Courts, Courts, County in in Commissioner to delivered to defendant the Con- be Peace, Courts, in Courts of Justices of the probation, applicable.” dition if may provid- in such other courts as be powers in While enumerated Article “Magistrate’s ed law ...” Courts” are § 5(a) many, are their is exercise necessari- not listed. ly “proceedings” permitted limited to those acting pursuant Legislature, The 67th general order of referral that are 1, supra, Art. enacted Art. Section § 4(a). contemplated by respect to With 31, 1981, V.A.C.C., August effective cause, say, powers grant- this that is to “Magistrates authorized the creation of in pro- in ed statute be utilized County.” Dallas ceeding negotiated plea guilty. of a Thereafter, 29, 1983, August effective immediately apparent It those magis- “the Legislature mandated that statutory powers grant do not include appointed by judges trates of the dis- application probation just of an for denial — County give pref- trict courts of Dallas 5(11). a recommendation. Also Section erence to criminal cases and the of refer- patent from the face of order the criminal district courts of Dallas Coun- authority pro- ral is that such additional ty” statutory “magistrates.” are See now conducting proceed- in a vides a 2.09, Art. V.A.C.C.P. Persons who are ing negotiated plea guilty on a contem- acting magistrates in Dallas now plates grant part plea bargain, of the if 1918c, supra, empow- are pursuant to Art. applica- not include of an but does denial ered, things, among pro- other “to issue all probation. thought tion for behind preventing sup- cess intended to aid delegation authority negotiated crime,” 2.10, pressing see Art. V.A.C.C.P. plea guilty proceeding is that a warrants, issuing This includes search see upon, he trate is not called nor will 18.01, Chapter Art. V.A.C.C.P. Also see empowered, to settle contested issues Procedure. Six Code Criminal probation. application raised an 4.01, V.A.C.C.P., following has the Magistrate lacked Since Howard Wilson caption: entitled “What Courts Have Crim- deny authority jurisdiction, statement, inal Jurisdiction.” Under the negotiated application probation in a following jurisdiction “The courts have proceeding, it follows that his plea actions:,” following out: is set purporting deny appellant’s appli- order void, by the magistrates appointed or effect. “5. The cation null and of no force trial court denied it. That denial of the trial 6. The court affirms the probation, judgment. court which makes no mention of recounted in the See need not be genuine applica- but if in fact made Article V.A.C.C.P. probation, presumption is that the tion for
H3 judges the any district courts of Dallas verse by magistrate, action taken the County give preference information, to criminal or recommit it for further judges cases and the judge may proper necessary criminal district the deem in Chap- particular courts Dallas as set out circumstances of the Legislature, Regu- by ter Acts 67th case.” If action is taken no the Session, (Article 1918c, lar judge, magistrate’s Vernon’s then the trate’s actions Statutes).” Texas Civil the decree of “become the court.” At the term, magistrate’s conclusion of each the Although may argued be that Art. judge adopting shall enter a decree whatev- unconstitutional, supra, is it is not magistrate er actions took on his behalf necessary question today. to decide that during that term. magistrates Art. 1918c states that The record of this cause reflects that an provided by appointed the act are by to be indictment was returned to Criminal Dis- judges of the criminal district courts of County, trict Court Number 4 of Dallas County, subject Dallas to the consent and by was thereafter transferred Hon. John approval of the Commissioners Court of Mead, duly court, judge elected of that County. magistrates Dallas The serve at to the Criminal District Court of Dallas judges, will of the not at the will of the County, by which case was received Hon. people, may and their services be terminat- Chapman, duly Ron judge elected time, any ed at “by majority vote of all the that court. judges magistrate for whom the serves.” only requirements The magistrate 1, 1981, to be a Judge Chapman On October en- person are the appointed order, must be a resi- general tered a wherein he “OR- dent of Texas practice and licensed to law DERED that all cases which have been years. indicted, Texas for at least mag- four The or have had duly such indictment salary istrate’s is determined defendant, the Com- assigned waived missioners Court of County. Dallas Ex- hereby Court are Mag- referred cepting merits, a “trial on the either with County, istrate’s Court Dallas Texas jury,” or without a prohibition and the pursuant V.A.C.S., to Art. 1918c for the “may he not enter a ruling any (thereafter following issue of proceedings: are enu- law or fact of which the determination general merated in what is contained in thereon could require result in dismissal or supra.) [Emphasis Added]. pending dismissal of a prosecu- However, general in his “Order of Refer- tion,” magistrate permitted ral,” to act in Judge Chapman expressly authorized virtually the same capacity as a Magistrate’s district “the Court” to do the follow- judge. He handle ing, involv- which are not authorized the stat- ing negotiated pleas guilty; “(a) forfei- plea; bond ute: render a in such tures; pretrial motions; postconviction (b) sentence the defendant.” ’ corpus; trials; writs of examining habeas pause re-emphasize I that no such “any judge other matters” that “his” thing “Magistrate’s as a Court of Dallas proper. deems He is even County, provi- Texas” was created given contempt. 1918c, supra. sions of Art. The statute statute,
Under the merely position magistrate. ob- created the upon specific tains a case persons may order of referral or One more judge. specify from “his” order must all of the criminal district to be perform magistrates. duties the will judges may authorize acted, that case. After the magistrates has one or more to share But, he shall transmit to papers “his” all with service two or more courts. case, relating together thing “Magistrate’s find- there no such as a conclusions, ings, orders, recommendations, Thus, magistrates Court.” act on an or other magistrate’s per actions taken. The assignment individual case basis from judge “may correct, modify, reject, re- judges. all of the criminal district *10 any assign- instance, County, nor is there Hon. Howard Wilson of Dallas
In this designating Wil- by Judge Chapman ment in as the this cause. acted in cause. to act this son as However, nothing in the record there is as a reflecting appointment Wilson’s states, it I find the Because what judges the criminal district following interesting: trate all of most act in that was not authorized to anything is not this hold Wilson Because there State, 40 Compare that Wilson was cause. Austin v. record which would reflect this short, In magistrate by (Tex.Cr.App.1897). all of the appointed to be S.W. 724 my district court of Dallas satisfaction that has not been shown nothing appel- County, “jurisdiction” and because there is to hear Wilson had Judge this record which would reflect lant’s cause. specifically assigned this cause to Chapman Furthermore, Chapman’s general Judge
Wilson, everything I Wil- would hold Referral,” applied to this “Order void, and of no son did in this cause was cause, nowhere is a void order because Wilson, respect In effect. all due cause, any reference to this therein is there record, might just upon this Wilson based number, is it style or nor stated either have an individual who walked as well been magistrate this cause the order to which the streets of Dallas into in off one of going referred to. was to be was Judge Chapman’s courtroom' and of Referral” did I find that the “Order by Judge Chapman to thereafter upon magis- “jurisdiction” not bestow magistrate for his court. abe 1918c,supra. There- pursuant to Art. trate are not Although recognize I we fore, unnecessary for the Court of it was from a dealing a transfer of a cause actions determine the Appeals to discuss or court, court to an inferior see district Wilson, to discuss the for this Court nevertheless, Y.A.C.C.P., 21.26, should less Appeals. decision of the Court documentary proof be way of record reasons, respectful- I all of the above For by Art. required expected than is needlessly writ- ly majority’s dissent where, opinion majority supra, before properly that are not ing subjects states, was “transferred” this cause convic- Court, affirming this as well as proper Because “Magistrate’s Court”? tion. record, I would is not in the documentation