Ricky Lee Young v. State

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-04-00208-CR

Ricky Lee Young,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 90688

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

          The court convicted Ricky Lee Young in a bench trial of violating a magistrate’s protective order by assaulting the person protected by the order.  Young pleaded “true” to an enhancement allegation, and the court sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.  Young contends in his sole point that the court erred by permitting the State to amend his indictment on the day of trial.  We will affirm.

          The indictment presented by the grand jury alleged in pertinent part that the protective order which Young allegedly violated had been issued “by the Domestic Relations Court of Jefferson County, Texas, Criminal District Court in Cause Number 2003183858.”  A copy of the protective order was attached to the indictment as “Exhibit A.”  When the State read the indictment at the commencement of Young’s trial, the State announced mid-indictment that it was “abandoning” the phrase “Domestic Relations Court of.”  Young did not object.

An indictment may be amended at trial if the defendant does not object.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 28.10(b) (Vernon 1989).  Because Young failed to object to the State’s alteration[1] of the indictment, he has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); State v. Murk, 815 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hoitt v. State, 30 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref’d).  Accordingly, we overrule Young’s sole issue and affirm the judgment.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 7, 2005

Do not publish

[CR25]

---

[1]           Because this issue is not preserved, we need not reach the question of whether the alteration of the indictment was an amendment or an abandonment of surplusage.