PULLIS, JOHN PETER Appeal from 19th District Court of McLennan County (original per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0127-14 JOHN PETER PULLIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON APPELLANT S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS MCLENNAN COUNTY P ER C URIAM. M EYERS, J., dissented. OPINION The appellant was convicted of violating a protective order. Because he had purportedly been convicted twice before for this same offense, he was convicted of a thirddegree felony. We granted the appellant s petition for discretionary review in which he contended that the court of appeals erred to uphold his conviction because one of the prior convictions lacked finality because it was on appeal, and that, without an allegation of two valid prior convictions, the indictment against him failed to allege a felony offense and Pullis 2 therefore did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction on the district court. The court of appeals rejected this claim in an unpublished opinion, on two grounds. First, it concluded that the particular district court in this case had subject-matter jurisdiction over both felony and misdemeanor cases, by virtue of Section 24.120(b 1) of the Texas Government Code, so that the State s pleading invoked its subject-matter jurisdiction whether or not it alleged a felony offense.1 Second, and in any event, the court of appeals held, the appellant may not raise such a claim in a motion to quash the indictment.2 Having examined the record and the briefs, we conclude that our decision to grant discretionary review in this case was improvident. We therefore dismiss the appellant s petition for discretionary review. DELIVERED: DO NOT PUBLISH October 8, 2014 1 Pullis v. State, 2014 WL 31423 (Tex. App. Waco, delivered Jan. 2, 2014), at *1 (citing T EX. G OV T C ODE ยง 24.120(b 1)). 2 Id. at *2 (citing State v. Rosenbaum, 910 S.W.2d 934, 948 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (dissenting op. adopted on reh g)).
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.
