Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Criminal Law No. 1464-01, 5/21/2003. Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: The appellant was charged by complaint and information with misdemeanor theft. A jury found the appellant guilty and assessed her punishment at 180 days confinement, probated for two years, and a fine of $2000. The court of appeals later reversed the conviction, holding that the correction of the the appellant’s name in the complaint vitiated the complaint, thereby rendering invalid the information based upon said complaint and divesting the trial court of jurisdiction. HOLDING: Reversed and remanded. As amended in 1985, Article 5, �12(b) of the Texas Constitution provides, in part, that the presentment of an indictment or information vests the trial court with jurisdiction of the cause. However, this constitutional provision does not apply to complaints. Huynh v. State, 901 S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The state argues that under Aguilar v. State, 846 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), the amendment of a complaint no longer vitiates the complaint and the information, thereby destroying the trial court’s jurisdiction. The state’s analysis is correct. In Aguilar, one of the issues was whether a defendant can object to an information for the first time on appeal on the grounds that a conviction was based upon a defective complaint. This court held that the mere presentment of an information to a trial court invests that court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, regardless of any defect that might exist in the underlying complaint. Defects in complaints must now be raised before trial pursuant to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 27.03; they are no longer jurisdictional in the traditional sense. In this case, the appellant did not object to the information. If the defendant does not object to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment or information before the date on which the trial on the merits commences, he waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity, and he may not raise the objection on appeal or in any other post-conviction proceeding. Studer v. State, 799 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). By not so objecting to the information prior to trial, the appellant waived any contention that the information was defective because it was based upon a defective underlying complaint. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for resolution of the remaining points of error. OPINION: Price, J.; Keller, P.J., Meyers, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., join. Womack, J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.