Background
William Anthony Russo II pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. Judge Russell Wilson, the elected judge of Wilson County’s 218th Judicial District Court, deferred adjudication and placed Russo on community supervision for ten years.
After the State moved to revoke community supervision, Judge Jennifer M. Dillingham, the elected judge of Wilson County’s 81st Judicial District Court, presided over the revocation proceeding. Russo pleaded true to violating a condition of community supervision. The court revoked his supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to 56 years in prison. On appeal, Russo argued that the 81st District Court lacked jurisdiction because the case had not been transferred from the 218th District Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction. Articles 42A.151 and 42A.754 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure govern transfers of jurisdiction between courts, but Russo’s case was not transferred. Instead, a district judge in the same county presided over a proceeding in the pending case.
The court explained that the 81st and 218th District Courts both serve Wilson County and have concurrent felony jurisdiction. The Texas Constitution and Government Code permit district judges in a county with multiple district courts to sit for one another, exchange benches, and decide proceedings pending in another district court without transferring the case. No written exchange order or explanation was required. The appellate court therefore overruled Russo’s sole issue and affirmed the judgment adjudicating guilt.
Key Takeaways
- A district judge may hear a proceeding pending in another district court in the same county without a formal transfer of the case.
- Texas law does not require a written order or an explanation when district judges in the same county exchange benches.
- The participation of the 81st District Court judge did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to revoke Russo’s supervision, adjudicate guilt, and impose sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a transfer of jurisdiction under the community-supervision statutes from an authorized exchange of benches between district judges in the same county. A defendant cannot establish a jurisdictional defect merely by showing that a different local district judge presided over the revocation proceeding and that the record contains no formal transfer or exchange order.