Henry Martinez v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2003
• Docket: 08-02-00287-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

)

HENRY MARTINEZ,

) No. 08-02-00287-CR )

Appellant,

) Appeal from )

v.

) 292nd District Court )

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

) of Dallas County, Texas )

Appellee.

) (TC# F-0123667-UV)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Henry Martinez appeals his conviction for indecency with a child younger than seventeen years of age. A jury found him guilty and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years' confinement in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm. Because the sole issue for our review is the facial validity of the judgment, we will dispense with the customary factual recitation.

SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGE

In his sole point of error, Appellant contends that the judgment is void because the signature of the trial judge is illegible and thus, it does not conform to the statutory requirement that a judgment must be signed by the judge. We disagree.

The Code of Criminal Procedure details at length the components that should be included in a court's written judgment. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.01, § 1 (Vernon Supp. 2003). A judgment is a written declaration of the court signed by the trial judge. Tex.Crim.Proc.Code Ann. art. 42.01, § 1. Absent a showing of irregularity, courts must presume regularity of the judgment and the proceedings. See Singleton v. State, 986 S.W.2d 645, 651 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1998, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Wilson, 716 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). Significantly, the burden is on the defendant to overcome this presumption. Wilson, 716 S.W.2d at 956.

The record before us reveals a signature on the judgment in the space marked "Judge Presiding." It is indeed somewhat illegible, but the judgment meets the requirements of the statute--it is signed. The signature is presumed to be that of the trial judge in the absence of any contrary proof. Appellant has tendered no evidence that the signature is not that of the trial judge. Because he has failed to provide evidence contesting the authenticity of the signature, we presume regularity of the judgment. Appellant's point sole is overruled and the judgment affirmed.

July 24, 2003 /s/ Ann Crawford McClure

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Panel No. 1

Larsen, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)