Ralph James Watson v. State

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Ralph James Watson Appellant Vs. No. 11-02-00095-CR B Appeal from Dallas County State of Texas Appellee This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. The trial court assessed Ralph James Watson=s punishment at imprisonment for five years. Appellant appeals. We affirm. In a single point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment because appellant=s case was not properly transferred to the court that revoked his community supervision. We disagree. Appellant was originally indicted on March 16, 1994, in Cause No. F-9451222WL in the A363rd Judicial District Court@ of Dallas County for possession of cocaine. The indictment contained an enhancement allegation. Appellant=s community supervision was revoked on February 22, 2002, in ACriminal District Court No. 5@ of Dallas County. Appellant contends that there was no written order entered by the 363rd District Court transferring the case to Criminal District Court No. 5. We have been provided with a supplemental clerk=s record containing the minutes of the 363rd District Court and Criminal District Court No. 5 which shows (although the copies are somewhat obscure) that appellant=s case (No. F-9451222WL) was transferred by the 363rd District Court to Criminal District Court No. 5. These minutes of the transferring and receiving courts show that appellant=s case was properly transferred. Moreover, the record fails to show that appellant at any time objected that Criminal District Court No. 5 had no jurisdiction over his case because a transfer order had not been entered. Appellant has waived his right to complain. See Sharkey v. State, 994 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 1999, no pet=n); Garcia v. State, 901 S.W.2d 731, 732 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet=n ref=d); Mills v. State, 742 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Tex.App. - Dallas 1987, no pet=n). Norton v. State, 918 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1996), pet=n dism=d, improvidently granted, 969 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Cr.App.1998), cited by appellant, is factually distinguishable and not persuasive. Appellant=s point of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. AUSTIN McCLOUD SENIOR JUSTICE August 7, 2003 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCloud, S.J.[1] [1]Austin McCloud, Retired Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland sitting by assignment.