Peter Henery v. State

Reversed and Remanded, and Majority and Dissenting Memorandum Opinions filed February 24, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-09-00996-CR PETER HENERY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1634586 MAJORITY MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Peter Henery, was charged by information for the misdemeanor offense of indecent exposure. Appellant filed a motion to quash the information, which the trial court orally denied following a hearing. Nevertheless, the trial court signed an order granting appellant’s motion to quash and striking the information. Six days later, appellant pleaded “guilty” to the charged offense pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced appellant to sixty days’ confinement in county jail. In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea, sentence him, and sign the judgment because the case was dismissed once the court signed the order quashing the information. We agree. Once an information is quashed and stricken, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction over the case and thus has no authority to conduct further proceedings. See Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Prochazka v. State, 878 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994, no pet.). We acknowledge that the trial court orally denied the motion to quash before signing the order granting the motion. However, the State did not file a motion nunc pro tunc requesting that the trial court determine whether it signed the order as the result of clerical or judicial error. Further, the State has not requested that we abate this case and order the trial court to conduct a nunc pro tunc hearing. Accordingly, on the record before us, the information has been quashed and stricken and no case is pending against appellant. We hold that the trial court’s judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and we remand with orders for the trial court to dismiss this cause.[1] /s/ Charles W. Seymore Justice Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and Christopher. (Boyce, J., dissenting). Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). [1] We need not address appellant’s remaining appellate issue.