William Franklin Andrews v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: 10-22-00239-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00239-CR

WILLIAM FRANKLIN ANDREWS, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the County Court at Law Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. C40662-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

William Franklin Andrews was convicted of the felony offense of evading arrest

or detention with a vehicle, enhanced, see TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.04(b)(2)(A), and

sentenced to 37 years in prison. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Andrews was convicted of a felony offense in the County Court at Law of Navarro

County. In Navarro County, a county court at law has jurisdiction concurrently with the

district court in felony cases for arraignments, pretrial hearing, and accepting guilty

pleas, and in jury trials on assignment from a district judge presiding in the county and

accepted by the county court at law judge. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 25.1772(a). In his sole issue

on appeal, Andrew contends that because a transfer order signed by the county court at law judge was not in the record in his case, the trial court had no jurisdiction to convict

him, and his conviction is void. We disagree with Andrews.

Regardless of whether or not a transfer order was actually signed by the county

court at law judge for this case, when a record does not contain a transfer order, such as

in this case, the error is procedural, not jurisdictional. Lemasurier v. State, 91 S.W.3d 897,

899 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.). Thus, the absence of a transfer order in the record does

not render the actions of the transferee court void. Id. Rather, it merely makes the

transferee court's action subject to a timely plea to the jurisdiction. Id. If a defendant fails

to file a timely plea to the jurisdiction, he waives any right to complain that a transfer

order does not appear in the record. Id.; Garcia v. State, 901 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) (citing Daniels v. State, 352 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1961).

Andrews admits that he did not file a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the

jurisdiction of the trial court. Thus, Andrews waived any complaint he may have had

regarding the trial court's jurisdiction due to the alleged absence of the transfer order

acceptance by the county court at law judge.

Accordingly, Andrews’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Andrews v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed May 30, 2024 Do not publish [CRPM]

Andrews v. State Page 3