JAMES CHRISTOPHER CARTER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Annotate this CaseAFFIRMED; Opinion issued October 25, 2006
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00628-CR
............................
JAMES CHRISTOPHER CARTER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F05-28097-WI
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, FitzGerald, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Bridges
James Christopher Carter waived a jury and pleaded guilty to forgery. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.21 (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, at ten years' imprisonment. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by using a prior theft conviction to enhance the punishment and lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and render judgment. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
In his second point of error, appellant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction because this case was not properly transferred to its docket. Appellant contends the indictment was returned in the 363rd Judicial District Court, but there is no order transferring the case to the Criminal District Court No. 2. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint. We agree.
Appellant did not raise the issue of the absence of a transfer order in the trial court. Consequently, appellant's complaint, raised for the first time on appeal, is untimely. See Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet.). We overrule appellant's second point of error.
In his first point of error, appellant argues the trial court erred by using a prior theft conviction to enhance the punishment. The indictment alleged appellant had been previously convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon on March 10, 1994 and a theft over $750 on February 12, 1988. Appellant asserts that because the theft offense is now a class A misdemeanor, it cannot be used for enhancement purposes. The State responds that the trial court properly used a prior conviction for enhancement purposes.
At the time of appellant's 1988 conviction for theft over $750, the offense was classified as a third-degree felony. See Act of May 25, 1985, 69th Legis., R.S., ch. 599, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2244 (amended 1989). When the legislature changed the offense to a misdemeanor, it provided that an offense committed before the September 1, 1994 effective date of that amendment is governed by the law in effect when the offense was committed. See Act of May 29, 1993, 73rd Legis., R.S., ch. 900, §1.01, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3636, 3766 (current version at Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2006)). Because appellant committed the theft offense prior to September 1, 1994, his theft conviction was appropriately used as a felony enhancement. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2006); State v. Lewis, 918 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1996, no pet.). We overrule appellant's first point of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
060628F.U05
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.