Darwin Dion Batton v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 10-23-00336-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-23-00336-CR

Darwin Batton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 85th District Court of Brazos County, Texas Judge Kyle Hawthorne, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 16-03740-CRF-85

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Darwin Batton was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated, a third-

degree felony, enhanced, and sentenced to 40 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL

CODE §§ 49.09(b); 12.42(d). In his sole issue on appeal, Batton complains

that because the 85th District Court in Brazos County also had misdemeanor

jurisdiction, the trial court erred in admitting over objection two prior

convictions as elements to be proved in the guilt/innocence phase of the trial when the prior convictions should have been construed as punishment

enhancements. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed under an

abuse of discretion standard. Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010). There is no abuse of discretion if the trial court's ruling is

within the zone of reasonable disagreement. De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d

336, 343-44 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Batton is correct that the 85th District Court has concurrent jurisdiction

with the statutory county courts of Brazos County in misdemeanor cases. TEX.

GOV’T CODE § 24.187(b). It also has original jurisdiction in felony cases. Id.;

TEX CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 4.05. See also TEX. CONST art. V, § 8.

The subject-matter jurisdiction of a court requires both a general grant

of authority to the trial court and a charging instrument that invokes the

court’s jurisdiction over a particular case. Trejo v. State, 280 S.W.3d 258, 260

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Here, the 85th District Court has the authority to hear

felony cases. Batton was charged by indictment with the third degree felony

offense of driving while intoxicated pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section

49.09(b)(2); he was not charged with the misdemeanor offense of driving while

intoxicated pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section 49.04. Section 49.09(b)(2)

Batton v. State Page 2 identifies an aggravating fact—consisting of multiple prior driving while

intoxicated convictions—that raises the level of the offense from a

misdemeanor to a felony, thus conferring subject-matter jurisdiction upon a

felony court such as the 85th District Court. See Holoman v. State, 620 S.W.3d

141, 145-46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). And it is well-settled that these prior

driving while intoxicated convictions are jurisdictional elements of the felony

offense which not only must be alleged to invoke the jurisdiction of the felony

court but also must be proved to obtain a conviction. See Barfield v. State, 63

S.W.3d 446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). See also Oliva v. State, 548 S.W.3d

518, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Martin v. State, 200 S.W.3d 635, 641 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006); Gibson v. State, 995 S.W.2d 693, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Thus, although the 85th District Court has the authority to hear misdemeanor

cases, the indictment conferred felony jurisdiction on the court over Batton’s

case.

Accordingly, because the indictment conferred felony jurisdiction on the

trial court and because the two prior convictions are jurisdictional elements,

the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of Batton’s two prior

convictions in the guilt/innocence phase of his trial. Batton’s sole issue is

overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Batton v. State Page 3 LEE HARRIS Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 1, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish [CRPM]

Batton v. State Page 4