|
No.
MA0404999
State
of Texas
v.
JOEL
TOMBLE
|
§
§
§
§
|
In
the county criminal
court
No. 2
Dallas
County ,
Texas
|
|
|
|
DEFENDANT’S
TRIAL BRIEF ON STATE’S FAILURE
TO AMEND
THE
INDICTMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID
COURT:
COMES NOW, Defendant JOEL TOMBLE and
files this trial brief on State’s
failure to amend the indictment and would
respectfully show as follows:
I. Argument: The State Failed
to Amend the Indictment
Under Texas law, the State has not amended
the indictment. “Neither the motion
[to amend] itself nor the trial judge’s
granting thereof is an amendment; rather
the two comprise the authorization for
the eventual amendment of the charging
instrument pursuant to Article 28.10.” Riney
v. State, 28 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2000) (quoting Ward v. State,
829 S.W.2d 787, 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992))
(emphasis added).
The indictment is not legally amended,
however, until the State physically
alters the face of the original indictment
or a photocopy of the original. “The
amendment, then, is the actual alteration
of the charging instrument.” Ward,
829 S.W.2d at 793. This physical alteration
can be carried out “by handwriting,
typing, interlining, or striking out,” Serna
v. State, 69 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. App.— El
Paso, 2002, no pet.), but the alteration
must appear on the face of the original
indictment or a photocopy of the original. See
Riney, 28 S.W.3d at 565-66; see
also Ward, 829 S.W.2d at 795 (“There
being no alteration to the face of the
indictment, we hold the indictment was
never in fact amended”); Mingetti
v. State, 2001 WL 34373156, *3 (Tex.
App.—Eastland, 2001, no pet.) (not
designated for publication) (“An
amendment may only be made by interlineation
on the face of the original, or a copy
of the original, indictment.”) (citing Riney,
28 S.W.3d at 566).
Once the original indictment or a photocopy
of it has been interlineated, it must be “incorporated
into the clerk’s file making it the ‘official’ indictment
of the case.” Serna, 69
S.W.3d at 380 (citing Riney, 28
S.W.3d at 566). On March 14, 2005, the
day the jury was impaneled and sworn, the
only charging document in the clerk’s
file was the unaltered original indictment.
Because the State has not timely filed
with the clerk the interlineated original
indictment or an interlineated photocopy
of the original, the operative indictment
in this case is the unaltered original.
In Serna, as in the case before
this Court, the State made a motion to
amend, which the court granted. Id.
at 378. Serna subsequently filed a motion
to quash, which the court denied. Id.
Because the State did not timely file with
the Clerk the interlineated original or
an interlineated photocopy of the original,
the Court of Appeals held that the unaltered
original indictment remained the operative
charging instrument. Likewise, in this
case, the State has not timely altered
the face of the original indictment or
a photocopy of the original. Accordingly,
the operative indictment is the unaltered
original.
If the defendant objects, the State cannot
amend the indictment on the day of trial. Sodipo
v. State, 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1990) (en banc). The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals held that Article 28.10
allows amendments at two time frames – before the
day the trial on the merits commences,
or after the day the trial on
the merits has commenced. Id.
at 555-56 & n.4 (“Article 28.10
clearly speaks to allow amendments at two
time frames discussed above. We hold that
to amend at any other time is error.”).
Consequently, “the State is not permitted
to amend an indictment on the day of trial.” Id. at
556. A ruling permitting the state to do
so is reversible error and will “not
be subjected to a harm analysis.” Id.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant
Tomble respectfully requests that the Court
find that that the operative indictment
in this case is the original amended indictment
in the Clerk’s file.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: December 1, 2005 DAVID FINN, P.C.
By: |
|
|
David
Finn
MILNER & FINN
David Finn
State Bar No. 07026900
International
Center-IV
2828 North Harwood Street
Suite 1950
, LB 9
Dallas , TX 75201
(214) 651-1121
(214) 953-1366 (fax)
|
Attorney
for Defendant Tomble |
|
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct
copy of this document has been served in
open court upon the Assistant District
Attorneys handling this case on December
1, 2005.
_________________________________
David
Finn
|