Timothy Wayne Buchanan v. State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 27, 2007
• Docket: 11-07-00258-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed September 27, 2007

Opinion filed September 27, 2007

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-07-00258-CR

                                TIMOTHY WAYNE BUCHANAN, Appellant

                                                                            V.

                                                      STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                        On Appeal from the 132nd District Court

                                                         Borden County, Texas

                                                      Trial Court Cause No. 193

                                                                   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 31.  Timothy Wayne Buchanan has been indicted for the offense of indecency with a child.  The trial court denied appellant=s pro se application for a pre-conviction writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm.

Appellant contended in his application that the grand jury did not have sufficient members and that the indictment was not valid because the attorney for the State had not signed it.  Appellant asked the trial court for relief from the indictment and arrest warrant and to Aget [the] illegal grand jury off of [him].@  In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his application because the indictment is fundamentally defective as it was returned by an improperly seated grand jury, because the indictment was not signed by an attorney for the State, and because the only representation he received before the grand jury was from the attorney for the State.

The record before this court does not support appellant=s claims that the trial court abused its discretion.  The record does reflect that the State met its burden once the application was filed.  Ex parte Williams, 587 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).  However, the record also reflects that appellant did not sustain his burden.   Ex parte Plumb, 595 S.W.2d 544, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).  Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the application.

All of appellant=s contentions on appeal have been considered, and each is overruled.  The sole issue on appeal is overruled.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

September 27, 2007

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.