Shaquandalond Shavonn Hawkins v. The State of Texas Appeal from 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed January 27, 2016. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00849-CR No. 05-15-00850-CR SHAQUANALOND SHAVONN HAWKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-11897-T, F12-62917-T MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Evans Shaquanalond Shavonn Hawkins appeals her convictions for aggravated robbery and murder. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear these cases and render judgment. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. In cause no. 05-15-00849-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a) (West 2011). In cause no. 05-15-00850-CR, appellant was indicted for the offense of capital murder. The trial court, however, granted the state’s motion to reduce the offense charged to murder. Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of murder. See id. § 19.02(a). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court sentenced her to fifteen years’ imprisonment in each case. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear these cases and render the judgments because these cases were not transferred to its docket. The State responds that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction to hear the cases. This Court has considered and rejected this issue on numerous occasions and we do so again today. See Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d).1 The 283rd Judicial District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s cases and render the judgments, we overrule appellant’s sole point of error. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. /David W. Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 150849F.U05 1 We have cited Bourque forty-two times rejecting the argument raised by appellant. We have explained that under the government code multiple district courts in a single county may adopt rules of administration and the district judges in Dallas County with criminal jurisdiction have done so requiring the assignment of newly filed cases “on a rotating basis among the district courts.” RULES OF ADMINISTRATION FOR DALLAS CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS GIVING PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 74.093 1.1 (Jan. 12, 2012); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.093 (West Supp. 2015) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, and hearing of all cases); see e.g. Bourque, 156 S.W.3d at 678; Halton v. State, 05-14-00640-CR, 2015 WL 3991827, at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 1, 2015, no pet.). Also, the constitutional provision authorizing district judges to act for one another does not require a written order. See TEX. CONST. art. V., § 11 (“District Judges may exchange districts, or hold courts for each other when they may deem it expedient, and shall do so when required by law.”). -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT SHAQUANALOND SHAVONN HAWKINS, Appellant No. 05-15-00849-CR Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12-11897-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices Francis and Stoddart participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 27th day of January, 2016. -3- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT SHAQUANALOND SHAVONN HAWKINS, Appellant No. 05-15-00850-CR Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12-62917-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices Francis and Stoddart participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 27th day of January, 2016. -4-

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.