Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Nov. 15, 2002, in Rains County, James William Davis pleaded guilty to the offenses of burglary of a habitation and engaging in organized criminal activity. Adjudging Davis guilty of the first offense but without adjudicating guilt for the second offense, the trial court placed Davis on community supervision for 10 years for each offense. On June 26, 2003, the state moved to revoke Davis’ community supervision in the burglary case and to proceed with an adjudication of guilt in the organized-crime case. On Feb. 6, 2004, Davis signed a judicial confession and a stipulation of evidence for each offense, admitting the violation of one of the terms of the deferred adjudication community supervision order. On Feb. 20, 2004, the trial court adjudged Davis guilty of the organized-crime offense and sentenced him to imprisonment for 40 years. On that same date, the trial court also revoked Davis’ community supervision in the burglary case, sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years and ordered that that sentence be served consecutively with the sentence assessed in the organized-crime case. On direct appeal, Davis argued for the first time that the trial court’s Nov. 15, 2002, order placing him on community supervision without adjudication of guilt in the organized-crime case and its Nov. 15, 2002, judgment granting him community supervision in the burglary case were both void, because the county attorney had not complied with the Texas Constitution Art. XVI, �1(3) oath requirements of his office until two months after the trial court rendered the challenged order and judgment. The 12th Court of Appeals found no evidence in the appellate record supporting Davis’ contentions. In support of his claims, however, Davis attached to his appellate brief photocopies of three documents from the secretary of state’s office and one document from the Rains County clerk’s office, and he asked the 12th Court to take judicial notice of those four documents. Two of the documents were certifications by the secretary of state. The first certification was dated Dec. 12, 2002, and stated that “a diligent search of the records filed in [the Secretary of State's] office pursuant to Texas Constitution art. XVI, �1 [had] failed to find filings for Robert Vititow as County Attorney and District Attorney, Rains county.” The second certification, dated Feb. 19, 2004, stated that a similar search had “found filings for Robert Vititow as County Attorney, Rains County dated January 13, 2003,” but that it had “failed to find filings for Robert Vititow as District Attorney, Rains County.” The other two documents that Davis tendered to the 12th Court were photocopies of the prosecutor’s “Statement of Elected Officer” and “Oath and Statement of Elected Officer,” both dated Jan. 13, 2003. As the 12th Court noted, Davis did not offer these documents in the trial court. The 12th Court declined to take judicial notice of the four documents on the grounds that the trial court had no opportunity to consider the documents upon which Davis relied. Thus, the 12th Court affirmed the trial court’s order and judgment rendered against Davis. The CCA granted review to determine whether the 12th Court erred in overruling Davis’ issue regarding the prosecutor’s failure to meet the oath requirements for elected officers, mandated by Art. XVI, �1 of the Texas Constitution, when that court failed to judicially notice Davis’ exhibits. HOLDING:Affirmed. In general, the CCA stated that all but the most fundamental evidentiary and procedural rules or rights are forfeited if not asserted at or before trial. The reason, the CCA stated, for the raise-or-forfeit rule � which requires a defendant to raise the issue at or before trial, or forfeit any rights thereof � is that “[a] timely objection in the trial court will afford both the trial judge and the State notice of the procedural irregularity and an adequate opportunity to take appropriate corrective action.” But the CCA found that Davis deprived both the trial judge and the state of this opportunity by failing to raise the issue of the prosecutor’s qualifications at or before the trial. Thus, the CCA found that the 12th Court was correct in declining to take judicial notice of the Davis’ exhibits, on the grounds that “[t]he trial court had no opportunity to consider the documents upon which [a]ppellant relies” and the documents were not part of the appellate record. Thus, the CCA held that Davis did not preserve the right to question the prosecutor’s qualifications on direct appeal. OPINION:Holcomb, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court.

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.