*1 the evidence that through had arisen con- court with responsibility manag- tinuing discovery and expert analysis. ing action, the class and provides it with plaintiff expert class’s own did not use to rеspond tools in changes plaintiff class structure defined in the development. case’s Prescribing the 1995 order damages analysis. to craft his class definition for the trial there- We also cannot ignore the settlements fore, interferes with the trial court’s dis- which, cluded the record in resolving cretion to monitor the class. against claims co-defendants Cit- Further, Id. at 407. “the triаl court’s dis- go, created distinct settlement classes that define, cretion to modify, subclassify, or do not correspond 1995 decertify in response to develop- the case’s certification order or the class definitions counsels favor of remanding to the set forth therein. appellate an court identi- The trial presented court was with mo- fies problems.” definitional Id. tions requesting it to revisit the issue of light class certification in many Conclusion changed circumstances. It held one hear- grant Citgo’s We motion for rehearing. ing, denied deсertify, the motion to then expand We holding in our opinion of (which approved agreement the settlement 30, 2005, September to include remand to was found to have been abandoned in our the trial court for further consideration September opinion), ultimately and rigorous analysis of the motions to moved forward with trial on the breach of decertify in light opinion of that contract Though claim. requested and changed circumstances of the case. presented motions, with new did not hold an hearing on de- prior
certification to trial. We conclude
that, in light of many and dramatic
changed circumstances, regardless they
whether are best considered under decertification,
modification or
court abused failing its disсretion in adequately TEAL, address the motions to decerti- Appellant, Wilbert James fy and to conduct rigorous analysis demanded Bernal. Texas, Appellee. The STATE of problems
We note that where No. 09-05-162-CR. definition, arise with a class appellate courts should be reluctant step Texas, of Appeals Beeson, redefine the class. Beaumont. 406. 42(c)(1), rule
[U]nder Submitted Nov. 2005. amend, alter, or withdraw class certifica- Delivered March 2006. tion at time judgment. before final Rehearing April Overruled 2006. example, For the contours of the case may change after is completed trial,
and as the prepare ne-
cessitating modification of the class defi- 42(c)(1)
nition. Rule invests the trial *2 of to Com
Brown for the offense Failure Offender, Registration as ply with Sex by Brown did or conceal Curtis harbor peace to officers that Curtis Brown stating оccupied by present at a residence not at a time when Curtis the defendant at said present then and there Brown was ” jury’s Following .... ver residence dict, punishment court assessed of Department confinement Institu Justice —Correctional years. of On tions Division for a term two of complains of the lack both appeal, he factually evidence to legally and sufficient jury- as as of sustain his conviction well charge error. record to trial court’s question raises subject-matter jurisdiction, must ad we proceeding any to dress this issue before other. See Sanchez (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Marin (Tex.Crim. (jurisdiction systemic re App.1993) be or con quirement that cannot waived consent, may be ferred and which con time). any See also Stаte v. sidered at (Tex.Crim. Roberts, 940 S.W.2d App.1996), grounds, on overruled Medrano, 892, 903 State v. Burnett, Bill Coldspring, appellant. State, 167 Crim.App.2002); Kelson v. Clyde Atty., Herrington, M. Dist. Dale (Tex.App.-Beaumont Summa, Atty., Lufkin, (threshold Asst. Dist. for stаte. pet.) inquiries addressing disposed must of before sub MeKEITHEN, C.J., Before because stantive issues raised KREGER, JJ. cannot be con by agreement parties, but ferred
OPINION in a court constitution be vеsted statute). or KREGER, CHARLES Justice. Code, of the Texas Penal Section 38.05 Teal, Appellant, Wilbert was con James Apprehension or Prose- “Hindering titled
victed in the 217th District for the cution,” pertinent the offense to describes Hindering Apprehension. in the manner: the instant case Supp. Pen.Code if, (a) commits an offense pertinent part of his indict arrest, prosecu- intent to hinder the ment reads: “did then and there intention with conviction, tion, ally, punishment anoth- intent hinder ..., he: of Curtis er for an offense prosecution, punishment (1) other; cases, harbors or cоnceals criminal tion of district is limited provides or in providing aids the oth- offenses and those misdemeanor er offenses means misconduct, involve official effecting escaрe; (2)that are transferred the district court (3) warns of impending *3 the other discov- under article 4.17 the Texas Code of ery apprehension. Criminal Procedure. See Tex.CodeCr im.P (c) Subsеction of 38.05 classifies the (Vernon 2005). roc. Ann. art. 4.05 Dis above-quoted offense as a Class misde- trict courts Texas have the meanor. the offense becomes a V, provided Seсtion Article of the third degree felony lan- Tex. Constitution. Gov’t Code Ann. guage is added elements: (Vernon 2004). § 24.007 (e) ... that except offense is a in pertinent part: 8 reads “District felony of if degrеe person the third exclusive, ap consists of harbored, concealed, who is provided pellate, original and of all ac avoiding with a means of arrest or ef- tions, rеmedies, proceedings, and except fecting escape, discovery or warned of exclusive, appellate, cases where or origi apprehension for, is under arrest nal may be conferred this with, charged or convicted of felony, Constitution or law on other some other ... person charged under this tribunal, body.” or administrative person section knew that the they har- The Texas Code provides Government bored, concealed, provided with a means that: “The 217th Judicial District is com or effecting escape, аrrest posed County.” of Angelina warned of or apprehension is (Vernon 2004). § Gov’t Code Ann. 24.395 for, with, under charged or con- The Legislature provided also has two added) felony[.] victed (emphasis of a statutory county law for For a to be charged defendant and con- “jurisdiction County, each with all over felony hindering victed of apprehension criminal, proceedings, causes and civil and additionally the State allege and prescribed appellate, law prove: person that harbored or See Tex. Gov’t courts.” Code аssisted facing charge, was or had (Vernon § Supp.2005); Ann. 25.0003 felony been convicted (“felony fugitive of a §§ 25.0051-25.0052 Coun status”); and that the defendant knew ty courts have “exclusive being harbored or assistеd had tion of misdemeanors other than misde felony fugitive the instant status. meanors involving official misconduct and while the language indicates cases which fine that highest assisted, that person being Curtis imposed is Tex. Gov’t less.” Code $500 Brown, did have status for (Vernon 2004). 26.045 See also offender,1 register failure to sex 4.05, Tex.Code Crim. Ann. arts. Proc. additionally allege indictment faded to that (Vernоn 2005). Teal felony had Brown’s knowledge fugi- tive facially charge subject-matter jurisdiction status so as to Lack of third was 38.05, degree felony section brought under and vest court’s attention fol- juris- lоwing jury panel. district court with swearing-in diction. The have appears responded State that (Ver- Supp.2005). 1. See Tex.Code Ann. art. non AND REMANDED WITH felony VACATED knowledge fugi- of Brown’s Teal’s proof. merеly a matter of INSTRUCTIONS. tive status was juris- denied trial counsel’s The complaint.
dictional GAULTNEY, Justice, dissenting. argument to the trial court State’s Justice, DAVID incorrect. The misdemeanor hinder- dissenting. only can ing apprehension be elevated felony degree hindering apprehen- third I The Constitution respectfully dissent. jurisdic- by including the additional sion provides of Texas State tional elements of to a court “presentment” of an indictment *4 fugitive status and the defendant’s knowl- the jurisdiction of vests the court with 12(b). edge of the other art. cause. See State, v. 103 generally status. Sеe Barnes the indictment “Presentment” occurs when 494, (Tex.App.-San S.W.3d 497 Antonio jury judge is the grand delivered 2003, State, pet.); v. 22 State, no Bruns S.W.3d 2 clerk court. v. See Carrillo 540, 2000, (Tex.App.-El 542-43 Paso n. (Tex.Crim.App.1999). 277 5 S.W.3d rule, charging “As pet.). general presented, jurisdic indictment is Once an charge strument must an offense within vests, later do tion and defects discovered in which jurisdiction. not divest the court of chаrging it is filed.... [I]f [a instrument] has Appeals 277. The Court of Criminal affirmatively alleges an not within substantively defective indict held that of the court in which it is sufficient to vest filed, the instrument should be dismissed State, jurisdiction. Cook See E. Dix & George or transferred.” Rob- (Tex.Crim.App.1995); S.W.2d Dawson, ert O. Texas Practice: State, 301, 302-03 Rodriguez v. 799 S.W.2d (2d Practice and Procedure An vests (Tex.Crim.App.1990). ed.2001)(footnotes omitted). In the instаnt if it fails to the court with even case, acquired trial court never offense. Stu allege an element See al- of the misdemeanor offense der required leged indictment and wаs See also Tex.Code Crim.App.1990). (de a court (Vernon 2005) to transfer the indictment to hav- 1.14(b) art. Poc. Ann. jurisdiction. ing misdemeanor must be raised before fect in indictment Proc. Ann. commencеs). Code Crim. agree I cannot Jones, 1989); Ex parte that the trial majority’s conclusion (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Hams v. jurisdiction over case. never acquired (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Bruns, 22 at 543^4. Because we acquired
conclude the court never judgment of
jurisdiction over the
conviction must be vacated and cause 217th Court with
remanded to the District transfer cause to one of
instructions to County hav- jurisdiction.
ing misdemeanor See Ex Harris, Jones, 313; 682 S.W.2d at
parte