State v. Kathleen McCoy

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 31, 2000
• Docket: 03-99-00792-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

---

NO. 03-99-00792-CR The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Kathleen McCoy, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 99-024, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

The State charged appellee Kathleen McCoy with two counts of manslaughter. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.04 (West 1994). McCoy moved to quash the State's indictment. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals in a single point of error. See State v. Moreno, 807 S.W.2d 327, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); State v. Hoffman, 999 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2000). We will affirm the trial court's order quashing the indictment.

McCoy's motion to quash and set aside the indictment alleged thirteen different substantive defects in the instrument, including that the indictment failed to provide her with sufficient notice of the acts that she allegedly committed. The district court's order granting the motion did not specify on which ground or grounds the motion was granted. In its sole point of error, the State contends that the trial court erred by granting the motion, arguing only that the indictment provided appellant with sufficient notice and complied with relevant portions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the State did not contest the other alleged defects in the indictment that appellee asserted in her motion to quash. ⁽¹⁾

It is generally presumed on appeal that the district court's rulings are correct. See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); State v. Pierce, 816 S.W.2d 824, 831 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, no pet.). As noted, the State did not brief its point of error regarding several of the grounds raised by appellee's motion. See Pierce, 816 S.W.2d at 831; Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. On appeal, the complaining party has the burden of contesting all grounds on which a court's judgment rests. See Cantu v. State, No. 1279-99, slip op. at 3 (Tex. Crim. App. May 10, 2000) (dismissing as improvidently granted petition in which State contested only one of two alternate grounds for appellate court's judgment). The point of error, as briefed, does not attack all possible bases for the district court's order quashing the indictment. Therefore, the State cannot overcome the presumption that the district court's ruling was correct. Because the court's order granting the motion can be affirmed on the unchallenged grounds, we need not address the State's sole argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

The State's motion to file a supplemental brief after submission on oral argument in order to raise new issues and additional arguments is overruled without prejudice to its right to seek re-indictment. The order granting the motion to quash and dismissing the State's indictment is affirmed.

Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justice Kidd and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: May 31, 2000

Do Not Publish

1. Although the State contended at oral argument that appellee had waived the remaining grounds in the motion, neither party made such contention in its brief, and the State concedes in a post-submission motion that McCoy did not waive any bases alleged in her motion.

c0c0">

---

NO. 03-99-00792-CR The State of Texas, Appellant





FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT The State charged appellee Kathleen McCoy with two counts of manslaughter. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.04 (West 1994). McCoy moved to quash the State's indictment. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals in a single point of error. See State v. Moreno

, 807 S.W.2d 327, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); State v. Hoffman, 999 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tex. App.--Austin 1999, no pet.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2000). We will affirm the trial court's order quashing the indictment.

McCoy's motion to quash and set aside the indictment alleged thirteen different substantive defects in the instrument, including that the indictment failed to provide her with sufficient notice of the acts that she allegedly committed. The district court's order granting the motion did not specify on which ground or grounds the motion was granted. In its sole point of error, the State contends that the trial court erred by granting the motion, arguing only that the indictment provided appellant with sufficient notice and complied with relevant portions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the State did not contest the other alleged defects in the indictment that appellee asserted in her motion to quash. ⁽¹⁾

It is generally presumed on appeal that the district court's rulings are correct. See Hardin v. State, 471 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); State v. Pierce, 816 S.W.2d 824, 831 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, no pet.). As noted, the State did not brief its point of error regarding several of the grounds raised by appellee's motion. See Pierce, 816 S.W.2d at 831; Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. On appeal, the complaining party has the burden of contesting all grounds on which a court's judgment rests. See Cantu v. State, No. 1279-99, slip op. at 3 (Tex. Crim. App. May 10, 2000) (dismissing as improvidently granted petition in which State contested only one of two alternate grounds for appellate court's judgment). The point of error, as briefed, does not attack all possible bases for the district court's order quashing the indictment. Therefore, the State cannot overcome the presumption that the district court's ruling was correct. Because the court's order granting the motion can be affirmed on the unchallenged grounds, we need not address the State's sole argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

The State's motion to file a supplemental brief after submission on oral argument in order to raise new issues and additional arguments is overruled without prejudice to its right to seek re-indictment. The order granting the motion to quash and dismissing the State's indictment is affirmed.

1. Although the State contended at oral argument that appellee had waived the remaining grounds in the motion, neither