Khaled Rasem Qandalji v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Khaled Rasem Qandalji v. State

DecidedMarch 27, 1996

Docket03-95-00546-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Khaled Rasem Qandalji v. State (Khaled Rasem Qandalji v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Khaled Rasem Qandalji v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-95-00546-CR

Khaled Rasem Qandalji, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 403,601, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

The county court at law found appellant guilty of assault and assessed punishment at incarceration for one year and a $2000 fine. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on community supervision.

In a single pro se point of error, appellant contends the court erred by proceeding to trial without securing appellant's written waiver of trial by jury. State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Townsend v. State, 865 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.13(a) (West Supp. 1996). The State contends appellant has not adequately briefed this point. After stating the point of error, appellant cites the statute and four opinions, including Curry v. Carr and Townsend, that are directly on point. Given the nature of the error, we believe that appellant's brief contains a discussion of facts and authorities requisite to maintain the point at issue. Tex. R. App. P. 74(f).

The judgment recites that appellant waived trial by jury. It does not state, however, that this waiver was in writing. As another opinion cited by appellant holds, this recital is not sufficient to support a presumption of compliance with article 1.13(a). Chaouachi v. State, 870 S.W.2d 88, 94 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1993, no pet.). The State concedes that article 1.13(a) was violated. In such a case, reversal is mandatory. Townsend, 865 S.W.2d at 470. The point of error is sustained.

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded to the county court at law for a new trial.

Before Justices Powers, Jones and B. A. Smith

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: March 27, 1996

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-95-00546-CR

Khaled Rasem Qandalji, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 403,601, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

The county court at law found appellant guilty of assault and assessed punishment at incarceration for one year and a $2000 fine. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on community supervision.

In a single pro se point of error, appellant contends the court erred by proceeding to trial without securing appellant's written waiver of trial by jury. State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Townsend v. State, 865 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.13(a) (West Supp. 1996). The State contends appellant has not adequately briefed this point. After stating the point of error, appellant cites the statute and four opinions, including Curry v. Carr and Townsend, that are directly on point. Given the nature of the error, we believe that appellant's brief contains a discussion of facts and authorities requisite to maintain the point at issue. Tex. R. App. P. 74(f).

The judgment recites that appellant waived trial by jury. It does not state, however, that this waiver was in writing. As another opinion cited by appellant holds, this recital is not sufficient to support a presumption of compliance with article 1.13(a). Chaouachi v. State, 870 S.W.2d 88, 94 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1993, no pet.). The State concedes that article 1.13(a) was violated. In such a case, reversal is mandatory. Townsend, 865 S.W.2d at 470. The point of error is sustained.

The judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded to the county court at law for a new trial.

Before Justices Powers, Jones and B. A. Smith

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: March 27, 1996

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Khaled Rasem Qandalji v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khaled-rasem-qandalji-v-state-texapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack