Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Selene Serrano v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-08-00209-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 28, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Selene Serrano appeals a judgment of deferred adjudication following her guilty plea to theft of property valued under $1,500, acknowledging two prior misdemeanor theft convictions. The trial court, after finding sufficient evidence of guilt, placed her on two years of community supervision. Serrano contends that her motion to quash the indictment was erroneously denied. She argued that one of her prior convictions was not final since she had received probation that had not been revoked, and sought dismissal of the indictment rather than quashing the specific enhancement paragraph. The trial court ruled that the finality of the conviction was an evidentiary matter for trial, not a pretrial jurisdictional issue. The State argued that the prior convictions were essential elements of the offense elevating it to a state jail felony, which cannot be challenged through a pretrial motion. The appellate court reviews the sufficiency of the indictment de novo and confirms that theft is classified based on the value of the property stolen, with prior convictions impacting the classification. The appeal is affirmed. Elevating a misdemeanor theft to a state jail felony based on prior theft convictions does not enhance punishment but establishes a new offense, granting district court jurisdiction. Previous convictions that elevate the charge are jurisdictional elements. An indictment's presentment confers jurisdiction, and district courts have original jurisdiction over felony cases and certain misdemeanors. If an indictment charges a felony, the district court retains jurisdiction even if the State can only prove a misdemeanor at trial. A valid indictment from a properly constituted grand jury mandates a trial on its merits; its sufficiency cannot be contested based on pretrial evidence. Pretrial motions, such as a motion to quash, cannot be used to challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting elements of the offense. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that a pretrial proceeding should not serve as a mini-trial on evidence sufficiency.