Call us 

Case Summaries 2003

Reason for TYC commitment that it will meet child’s educational needs is a proposition of law, not fact [In re C.Q.] (04-1-16)
On January 15, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court’s statement of reason for a TYC commitment that it would meet the child’s educational needs is a proposition of law, not fact. As such there is not requirement that it be supported by evidence.

Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring juvenile sex offender to TDCJ despite lack of sex offender treatment [In re D.T.] (04-1-15).
On December 31, 2003, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferred a juvenile sex offender to TDCJ who was not offered sex offender treatment because he would not acknowledge responsibility for the committing offense.

Evidence was sufficient to prove possession of a short barrel shotgun [In re J.A.A.] (04-1-14).
On December 31, 2003, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the juvenile respondent possessed a prohibited weapon that he had thrown down.

Unadjudicated juvenile offenses are admissible at the penalty phase of a criminal trial [Dawson v. State] (04-1-13).
On December 31, 2003, the Waco Court of Appeals held that testimony at the penalty phase of a criminal trial by a juvenile probation officer that the criminal defendant received deferred prosecution as a juvenile is admissible as an unadjudicated juvenile offense.

In modification proceedings, the juvenile court considered the full range of options before committing the juvenile to the TYC [In re C.S.C.] (04-1-12).
On December 31, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and committing the juvenile to the TYC. The court considered its full range of options in the case.

Requirement of DNA sample as probation condition is constitutional; applies to probationers with excused registration [In re D.L.C.] (04-1-11).
On December 18, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that a retroactive requirement of a DNA sample as a condition of probation is constitutional as against an ex post factor claim and a search and seizure claim; the Court also held that the requirement applies when de-registration has been ordered.

Court of Appeals applies criminal factual sufficiency standard to review adjudication [In re A.L.L.] (04-1-10).
On December 18, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that it would continue to apply the criminal factual sufficiency standard of review in delinquency cases because the State’s burden of proof in such cases is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Claim that State must allege prior misdemeanor adjudications to support TYC commitment not preserved for appeal [In re M.D.H.] (04-1-09).
On December 18, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile had not preserved for appeal the claim that the State must allege prior misdemeanor adjudications to support a TYC commitment upon the third misdemeanor adjudication.

Attorney General says that child referred for contempt of JP court may be detained if criteria warrant, but not placed in secure post-adjudication facility [No. GA-0131] (04-1-08).
On December 15, 2003, the Texas Attorney General said that a child referred to the juvenile court for contempt of a JP court may be detained if juvenile detention criteria warrant, but may not be placed in a secure post-adjudication facility. This opinion clarifies Opinion Attorney General No. JC-0454 (2000).

Court of appeals has no original habeas jurisdiction in juvenile case [In re L.L.] (04-1-07).
On December 10, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that it lacks jurisdiction in an original habeas corpus action challenging a juvenile court order of detention.

When mother signed notice of appeal she may seek dismissal of the appeal [In re R.R.J.] (04-1-06).
>On December 10, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal on request of the respondent’s mother when the mother had signed the original notice of appeal.

Juvenile court lost jurisdiction to revoke probation when respondent became 18 [In re A.B.] (04-1-05).
On December 5, 2003, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that under the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in N.J.A. the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over the State’s motion to modify disposition when the respondent became 18 before probation was revoked.

Failure to defense attorney to subpoena alibi witness to adjudication hearing was ineffective assistance of counsel [In re I.R.] (04-1-04).
On December 4, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the failure of the respondent’s attorney to subpoena a witness who would have testified that respondent was out of town with his family on the date of the assault was ineffective assistance of counsel.

Evidence sufficient to prove intent to arouse or gratify element of indecency with a child [In re D.B.] (04-1-03).
On December 4, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld an adjudication for indecency with a child over a claim that the 13-year-old respondent was intending only to be funny-not to arouse or gratify his sexual desires–when he touched two girls inappropriately.

Court of Appeals upholds TYC commitment under abuse of discretion standard [In re S.R.M.] (04-1-02)
On December 3, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld a commitment to TYC under its abuse of discretion standard.

Attorney General says unemancipated 17-year-old child is not a missing child when parents know the child’s whereabouts [GA-0125] (04-1-01).
On November 25, 2003, the Texas Attorney General opined that under the missing persons statute, law enforcement authorities are not authorized to return an unemancipated 17-year-old to parents when the parents know the whereabouts of the child.

The Court of Appeals exhaustively reviewed the appellate record for errors when counsel filed an Anders brief [In re A.C.R.] (03-4-23).
On November 26, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals exhaustively reviewed the appellate record for errors when counsel on appeal filed a brief stating that the appeal was frivolous.

Juvenile did not prove a causal connection between the failure to notify parents of his arrest and his confession [Gonzales v. State] (03-4-22).
On November 26, 2003, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the juvenile respondent did not prove a causal connection between the failure of police to notify police of respondent’s arrest and his later confession.

Burden on juvenile respondent to show causal connection between failure to notify parents and confession [Pham v. State] (03-4-21).
On November 26, 2003, the First District Court of Appeals, on remand from the Court of Criminal Investigations Division Appeals, held in an en banc opinion that the burden is on the juvenile respondent to prove a causal connection between the failure of police to notify parents of the juvenile’s arrest and his confession, and that the juvenile respondent here offered no proof.

Counsel not ineffective in criminal trial in failing to object to juvenile record when defendant opened the door by his testimony [Andrews v. State] (03-4-20)
On November 20, 2003, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the use of a juvenile record to impeach the defendant’s testimony that he had never been in trouble before.

Requiring juvenile to remove shoes to enter alternative learning center was a valid search [In re O.E.] (03-4-19).
On November 13, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals upheld a search without particularized suspicion of a student’s shoe which produced marijuana as a valid administrative, school search.

No abuse of discretion in TYC commitment because of failed treatment efforts [In re R.M.] (03-4-18).
On November 5, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing respondent to the TYC because of failed treatment efforts for inhalant abuse.

Error not to require unanimous verdict on at least one of four theories charged in petition [In re M.P.] (03-4-17).
On November 5, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court erred when it refused to require a unanimous jury verdict on at least one of four different theories of aggravated sexual assault charged in the petition.

TYC commitment upheld under abuse of discretion standard [In re R.M.] (03-4-16).
On November 15, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld a TYC commitment under the abuse of discretion standard it had previously adopted.

Court of Appeals requires three misdemeanor adjudications to authorize TYC commitment on misdemeanor probation revocation [In re J.W.] (03-4-15).
On November 5, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeals joined four other courts of appeal in holding it requires three misdemeanor adjudications to authorize TYC commitment on revocation of misdemeanor probation.

Prior attempts at community placement and lack of parental supervision justify TYC commitment [In re T.A.] (03-4-14).
On October 30, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court’s commitment to TYC was justified because of its prior efforts to rehabilitate the juvenile through community placements and because the juvenile’s mother refused to cooperate with the court.

No objection to failure to prove age; out-of-court proof of age sufficient [In re J.C.M.] (03-4-13).
On October 29, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the respondent did not object to the absence of proof of age in the adjudication proceeding as required by law and that the out-of-court proof of age was sufficient.

Cannot revoke probation for failure to pay restitution without proof the failure was willful; respondent did not violate probation by leaving placement [In re J.M., III] (03-4-12).
On October 23, 2003, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that the State had failed to prove that the 13-year-old respondent in placement willfully failed to pay restitution and that he had absconded from his placement.

Probation revoked for failure to attend school; claim of parental coercion not proved [In re P.Z.] (03-4-11)
On October 20, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the child had failed to prove that his unauthorized absences from school were solely the result of decisions made by his parents.

Court of Appeals applies Code of Criminal Procedure article 4.18 to a claim of an error in certification proceedings [Allen v. State] (03-4-10)
On October 16, 2003, the Eastland Court of Appeals misinterpreted article 4.18 to require an objection under it to preserve for appellate review a claim of an error in certification proceedings.

Sufficient evidence to support modification to permit placement for 18 months [In re D.A.G.] (03-4-09)
On October 8, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support modification of probation to permit a secure placement of up to 18 months for a new offense probation violation.

No proof that CPS worker was not outcry witness in sexual assault case [In re C.D.G.] (03-4-08)
On October 2, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the CPS worker who testified did so properly as an outcry witness because although the complainant had talked to her mother and to police before speaking with the CPS worker, her statements to them were merely allusions to the offense, not a comprehensive outcry.

Removal from home findings in disposition proceedings supported by evidence in commitment of Canadian national to TYC [In re J.B.D.] (03-4-07)
On October 2, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals upheld the juvenile court’s removal from home findings to permit a TYC commitment in a possession of marijuana case in part because of limitations placed upon alternative dispositions by respondent’s status as a Canadian national.

Capital murder statement was admissible because the juvenile was not in custody; the statement was not involuntary under the due process standard [Martinez v. State] (03-4-06).
On September 17, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile was not in custody when he was interrogated by police about a capital murder; after making the statement, he was returned home and arrested the next day.

Probation revocation for failure to attend school upheld [In re T.R.S.] (03-4-05).
On September 5, 2003, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court was authorized to revoke probation because the juvenile failed to attend school as required by his conditions.

Insufficient evidence baseball bat was used as a deadly weapon in aggravated assault by threat case [In re S.B.] (03-4-04).
On August 29, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence the respondent used a baseball bat as a deadly weapon when she threatened another student at school.

Error to enhance criminal sentence with pre-1996 adjudication; juvenile opened door in criminal trial to bad act testimony [Franklin v. State] (03-4-03).
On September 3, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that it was error to enhance a criminal sentence with proof of a pre-1996 juvenile adjudication and that the defendant opened the door to testimony about bad acts by his claim of non-criminal conduct.

Single photo display of respondent did not taint eyewitness testimony [In re T.S.H.] (03-4-02).
On August 28, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that a single photo display to an eyewitness by the prosecutor before trial did not under the facts of this case so taint the in-court identification by the witness to violate due process of law.

Commitment to TYC for aggravated assault by threat upheld under discretion abuse review of removal from home findings [In re D.U.] (03-4-01).
On August 27, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld the TYC commitment of a gang member for a gang-related aggravated assault by threat offense committed against an undercover police officer.

Evidence was factually sufficient to support indecency adjudication; juvenile’s statement to police was not involuntary [In re Z.L.B.] (03-3-29).
On August 15, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeals, on remand from the Texas Supreme Court, held that the evidence was factually sufficient to support adjudication of a 12 year old for indecency with a child and that his statement to police was not involuntary.

Juvenile court was not required to initiate fitness inquiry without motion; evidence sufficient to support removal from home [In re J.K.N.] (03-3-28).
On August 14, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that there was nothing in the court proceedings to have required the juvenile court on its own notice to initiate fitness to proceed inquiries.

Evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support a TYC commitment of a Mexican national [In re G.M.] (03-3-27).
On August 14, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to support the removal from home findings needed to justify commitment to TYC.

Ineffective assistance is not a jurisdictional claim in a criminal appeal following certification [Rodriguez v. State] (03-3-26).
On August 4, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that in a criminal appeal from a plea-bargained disposition, ineffective assistance of counsel is not a jurisdictional claim permitting an appeal.

Failure of record to show adjudication petition was served on juvenile requires reversal [In re M.D.R.] (03-3-25).
On July 22, 2003, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that failure of the record to show that the adjudication petition was served on the juvenile with the summons requires reversal of the adjudication without a showing of harm.

Mother’s failure to take child to placement facility is hindering apprehension of delinquent child [Mitz v. State] (03-3-24).
On July 17, 2003, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that the failure of a mother to transport her son to a placement as ordered by the juvenile court was the offense of hindering apprehension of a delinquent child.

Failure to assert mental illness defense at revocation hearing not ineffective assistance of counsel [In re T.T.G.] (03-3-23).
On July 16, 2003, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that failure to assert a mental illness defense at revocation proceedings was not ineffective assistance since respondent failed to show that the outcome probably would have been different.

Not ineffective assistance for counsel in criminal case to fail to challenge confession made by his 14 year old client [Charles v. State] (03-3-22).
On July 3, 2003, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that it was not ineffective assistance of counsel for a certified juvenile’s criminal court defense attorney to fail to challenge the admissibility of a confession made by his 14 year old client.

Attendance officer and probation officer may reference records while testifying in modification hearing [In re J.G.] (03-3-21).
On July 17, 2003, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that an attendance officer and a probation officer were properly permitted to refer to their records while testifying at the fact finding phase of a modification hearing

Interlocutory appeal of certification does not abate criminal prosecution [Ex parte Venegas] (03-3-20).
On July 16, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that under the pre-1996 law, an interlocutory appeal from a certification does not abate criminal prosecution for the offense transferred.

Evidence sufficient to support adjudication for being party to delivery of a controlled substance [In re D.W.A.] (03-3-19).
On July 10, 2003, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s adjudication as a party to sale of cocaine to an undercover officer.

Evidence sufficient to support adjudication for indecency with a child [In re T.D.B.] (03-3-18).
On July 3, 2003, the Houston 14th District Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the juvenile court’s adjudication for indecency with a child.

It was not ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings to fail to move to suppress a confession by a 14 year old who claimed to be high on marijuana [Charles v. State] (03-3-17).
On July 3, 2003, the Houston 14th District Court of Appeals held that counsel in a criminal proceeding did not render ineffective assistance in failing to move to suppress a written statement given by his client when he was 14 years old when the client claimed to have been high on marijuana at the time the statement was given.

Evidence was sufficient to support criminal trespass by failing to depart adjudication [In re M.A.F.] (03-3-16).
On July 3, 2003, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient to support an adjudication for criminal trespass for failing to leave a skating ring upon the demand of the security guard.

Evidence sufficient for aggravated sexual assault of a child; medical diagnosis hearsay exception issue discussed but not decided [In re Y.H.] (03-3-15).
On June 25, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support an adjudication for aggravated sexual assault of a four-year-old child; the court discussed, but did not decide, whether the four-year-old understood the importance of candor for medical diagnosis sufficiently for that exception to the hearsay rule.

Removal from home findings sufficient for TYC commitment for assault with bodily injury [In re R.R.] (03-3-14).
On June 25, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court’s removal from home findings were sufficient in a case in which the respondent had previously been committed to the TYC and was later adjudicated for an assault with bodily injury committed at school.

Proof of value in criminal mischief case insufficient; proof of resisting arrest insufficient because respondent already under arrest [In re M.C.L.] (03-3-13).
On June 19, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held there was insufficient evidence as to the monetary value of damages to a patrol car window and that respondent was not guilty of resisting arrest because he was already under arrest at the time of the conduct alleged to resisting.

Sufficient evidence of prior felony adjudication to authorize TYC commitment for a misdemeanor [In re J.H.] (03-3-12).
On June 19, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence of a prior felony adjudication appeared in the social history report to authorize a TYC commitment for a misdemeanor.

There was insufficient evidence that a knife was a deadly weapon in an aggravated robbery trial [In re J.A.W.] (03-3-11).
On June 17, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence that a knife alleged in an aggravated robbery trial to be a deadly weapon was such a weapon in view of the absence of evidence as to its nature, length, sharpness or capacity to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

Juvenile court not required to admonish as to deportation consequences of adjudication [In re R.F.] (03-3-10).
On June 17, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that because juvenile proceedings are civil, not criminal, the requirement in the Code of Criminal Procedure that the judge admonish as to deportation consequences of a conviction do not apply in juvenile proceedings.

Arrest had not already been completed when respondent resisted [In re M.H.] (03-3-09).
On June 12, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the respondent was correctly adjudicated for resisting arrest, rejecting the argument that the arrest had already been completed when the resisting conduct occurred.

Unobjected to error in jury charge to be measured by civil, not criminal, standards [In re A.A.B.] (03-3-08).
On June 11, 2003, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the civil standard of assessing harm applies to unobjected to error in a juvenile jury charge, not the criminal standard of Almanza v. State.

Criminal court cannot enhance punishment with juvenile adjudication for state jail felony [Fortier v. State] (03-3-07).
On June 10, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a state jail felony juvenile adjudication cannot be used to enhance punishment under article 12.42 of the Penal Code.

Assault on public servant petition was not fatal in face of motion for failure to allege how the victim was a public servant [In re F.C.] (03-3-06).
On June 5, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals upheld a petition charging assault on a public servant even though it did not allege under what statutory definition of public servant the public school teacher complaining witness came.

Not error to refuse to permit defendant to question witness about juvenile record [Esparza v. State] (03-3-05).
On June 4, 2003, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that it was not error for the trial court to deny permission to the defendant to question a state’s witness about his juvenile record in view of the witness’ extensive adult record admitted into evidence.

Evidence in modification hearing supported juvenile court’s commitment to TYC [In re E.R.L.] (03-3-04).
On June 5, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals upheld a juvenile court’s commitment on modification to the TYC against a claim that a less restrictive alternative exists.

Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing a probation violator to the TYC [In re K.B.] (03-3-03).
On June 3, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion committing respondent to the TYC despite respondent’s suggestion that a less restrictive appropriate placement exists.

Search of juvenile was lawful based on consent [In re L.C.] (03-3-02).
On May 30, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a search of a juvenile that uncovered cocaine was lawful based on the consent of the juvenile.

Failure in criminal trial to file written pre-trial motion objecting to jurisdiction waives respondent’s claim of juvenility; failure to file not ineffective assistance [Marquez v. State] (03-3-01).
On May 30, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that because respondent failed to file a written pretrial motion as required by article 4.18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging jurisdiction on the grounds of juvenility, he waived that claim. It was not ineffective assistance under these circumstances for counsel not to have filed that motion.

Evidence sufficient to show respondent knowingly possessed marijuana found in his shoe [In re J.H.] (03-2-40).
On May 21, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient prove that the respondent knew the substance he had hidden in his shoe was marijuana.

Court of Appeals approves of statement admissibility on parental notice issue [Hampton v. State] (03-2-39).
On May 22, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals, on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals, held that a tape recorded statement was admissible in evidence over a claim that police had not notified parents of the purpose of taking the child into custody.

Evidence was sufficient for aggravated assault by firearm; not error to exclude evidence of pending arrest warrant against witness [In re S.D.C.] (03-2-38).
On May 8, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld an adjudication for aggravated assault over challenges for legal and factual insufficiency. It also held that it was not error for the trial court to prohibit questioning about a pending arrest warrant against a witness since there was no suggestion the warrant was likely to affect his testimony.

An anonymous tip did not provide reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk by a school resource officer [In re A.T.H.] (03-2-37).
On May 8, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held that an anonymous tip about students smoking marijuana near campus did not provide a school resource officer with reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk a person on a school parking lot. The marijuana seized by the officer should have been suppressed.

Not ineffective assistance for counsel to fail to object to extraneous offenses or to request a limiting instruction [In re Y.R.C.] (03-2-36).
On May 8, 2003, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that the record did not rebut the presumption that counsel had a valid strategic reason for objecting to some, but not all, extraneous offenses and for not requesting a limiting instruction.

Trial court reset modification hearing without ruling on motion; post-termination modification of probation valid [In re P.L.] (03-2-35).
On May 7, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that when the judge placed respondent in a boot camp he was not ruling on a motion to modify; therefore, a later revocation on the same motion was valid. Because the State used diligence, a post-termination-of-probation revocation on a motion filed before probation expired was valid.

The evidence was sufficient to support commitment to TYC for indecency with a child [In re E.J.L.] (03-2-34).
On May 1, 2003, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the evidence as shown in the social history report was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s decision to commit respondent to the TYC for indecency with a child.

Reasonable suspicion to frisk juvenile was provided by his nervous behavior [In re P.M.] (03-2-33).
On April 30, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a juvenile’s nervous behavior when stopped in a motor vehicle provided reasonable suspicion for the officer to frisk him for weapons.

A birth certificate not admitted into evidence in criminal proceedings is not proof defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offenses [Ramirez v. State] (03-2-32).
On April 30, 2003, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that attaching a birth certificate to a general notice of appeal was not proof that defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offense.

Constitutional, not criminal, habeas corpus is appropriate to challenge confinement in TDCJ under the determinate sentence act [Ex parte Valle] (03-2-31).
On April 30, 2003, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that when a juvenile who is confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice wishes to challenge the lawfulness of his confinement, he must use constitutional habeas corpus, not the statutory procedures for post-conviction felony habeas in article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Juvenile felony adjudication does not later make a criminal defendant ineligible to receive community supervision from the jury [Malpica v. State] (03-2-30).
On April 30, 2003, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that while an adjudication of felony delinquency is not a criminal conviction, the error of the jury in finding it to be a conviction was not harmful in view of the 99 year sentence assessed.

State may not appeal from order of juvenile court suppressing evidence [In re F.C.] (03-2-29).
On April 30, 2003, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that in juvenile cases, unlike in criminal cases, the state has no right to appeal from an order suppressing evidence.

Motion for new trial necessary to appeal a factual sufficiency issue [In re E.U.M.] (03-2-28).
On April 24, 2003, the Beaumont Court of Appeals held that a motion for a new trial is necessary to preserve a factual sufficiency issue for appellate review; the court held the evidence was sufficient to support an adjudication for manslaughter.

Due process was not violated in denying a continuance at disposition to obtain testimony of respondent’s doctor [In re J.H.C.] (03-2-27).
On April 24, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals upheld the juvenile court’s denial of a motion for continuance made during disposition proceedings to obtain testimony from a medical doctor who had examined respondent.

Appeal challenging 30 day confinement as probation condition is moot because the term has already been served [In re J.P.D.] (02-3-26).
On April 24, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal challenging a 30 day confinement condition of probation for lack of home removal findings because the juvenile had already served the period of confinement. The appeal challenging only that portion of the order is therefore moot.

Evidence was sufficient to support certification for intoxication manslaughter because of inadequate time for juvenile probation [Faisst v. State] (03-2-25).
On April 23, 2003, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the juvenile court’s conclusion that the interests of the public require certification because respondent would have been eligible for less than one year of juvenile probation.

The Tyler Court of Appeals finds that a delay in notifying parents of arrest invalidated confession under causal connection rule [State v. Simpson] (03-2-24).
On April 23, 2003, the Tyler Court of Appeals, on remand from the Court of Criminal Appeals, found that a substantial delay in notifying parents of their son’s arrest for capital murder was causally related to his confessing and thus the confession was invalid under the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Gonzales v. State.

Probation officer’s testimony proves one prior misdemeanor; respondent’s admission proves the other; misdemeanor revocation with TYC commitment authorized [In re C.E.R.] (03-2-23).
On April 17, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient proof of two prior misdemeanor convictions to authorize revocation of probation granted on a third conviction and commitment to the TYC .

Beaumont Court of Appeals says that parent and child must both desire to appeal for one to be filed [In re A.M.M.] (03-2-22).
On April 10, 2003, the Beaumont Court of Appeals appears to have said that both parent and child must be on the record desiring appeal for a notice of appeal to be filed.

Attorney General says that local government may broadcast information about registered sex offenders on local cable channel [No. GA-0056] (03-2-21).
On April 7, 2003, the Attorney General opined that because sex offender registration information is public, a local government is permitted to broadcast that information on a local cable channel. This includes information about juvenile registrants.

Certified juvenile is entitled to credit on prison sentence for time spent in juvenile detention [Ex parte Brown] (03-2-20).
On February 26, 2003, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a certified juvenile is entitled to receive credit on his prison sentence for time spent in juvenile detention before certification.

Findings that probation was violated was a sufficient statement of reasons for revoking probation [In re S.M.] (03-2-19).
On April 2, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that findings by the juvenile court that the respondent had violated two probation conditions was a sufficient statement of reasons to advance in support of revocation of probation.

Evidence factually sufficient to support indecency adjudication [In re E.P.C.] (03-2-18).
On March 31, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that although the evidence was contradictory, it was factually sufficient to support the adjudication for indecency with a child.

Habeas corpus cannot be used as an appeal substitute, here to challenge probation revocation [In re K.T.] (03-2-17).
On March 31, 2003, the Tyler Court of Appeals denied an original petition for writ of habeas corpus filed nine months after misdemeanor probation was revoked, alleging that the case was not eligible for commitment under the misdemeanor probation law. Petitioner could have taken a direct appeal from the revocation decision by filing a timely notice of appeal.

Refusal of respondent to undergo mental examinations does not invalidate certification [Montgomery v. State] (03-2-16).
On March 28, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the refusal of respondent, on advice of counsel, not to undergo psychiatric or psychological examination did not invalidate the certification of respondent to criminal court.

Not ineffective assistance for counsel not to question at disposition statements made in report [In re R.D.B.] (03-2-15).
On March 27, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that it was not ineffective assistance for counsel not to question at disposition statement made about his client in reports from the therapeutic foster home where he had been placed pending disposition.

Appellate counsel files Anders brief; judgment modified to require placement of thumbprint on judgment [In re R.W.G.] (03-2-14).
On March 27, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment while considering all of the arguable grounds of error alleged in the Anders (frivolous appeal) brief. Included in that brief was the claim that the trial judge erred in not requiring the placement of respondent’s thumbprint on the judgment. The Court of Appeals accepted that claim and ordered that the thumbprint be placed on the judgment.

Evidence sufficient to support adjudication for delivery of controlled substance [In re O.J.H.] (03-2-13).
On March 20, 2003, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that testimony by an undercover officer and a tape recording were sufficient to prove a sale of cocaine to a cooperating individual.

Eyewitnesses corroborate accomplices’ testimony in burglary trial [In re C.M.] (03-2-12).
On March 20, 2003, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that testimony of eyewitnesses that they saw the respondent exist the burglarized habitation carrying rifles was sufficient to corroborate the testimony of three accomplices to the offense.

Insurance company has duty to defend youth facility in wrongful death lawsuit [Progressive Youth Services v. Dallas Fire Insurance Co.] (03-2-11).
On March 20, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a liability insurance company had a duty to defend against a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a resident in the insured youth facility.

Evidence was sufficient to support participation in assault as a party [In re C.E.T.] (03-2-10).
On March 20, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication of respondent for participating as a party in an assault by her sister on a contemporary.

Appeal dismissed in plea bargained case because written stipulation was not a pretrial motion under the appeal statute [In re B.N.C.] (03-2-09).
On March 19, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that when the respondent got what he plea bargained for, he could not appeal without juvenile court permission or on denial of a written pretrial motion.

No factual support for juvenile court’s statement of reasons for revoking probation [In re A.R.D.] (03-2-08).
On March 19, 2003, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that there was no factual support for the juvenile court’s statement of reasons for revoking probation. Accordingly, it set aside the TYC commitment and remanded the case for further proceedings, presumably to make a supportable statement of reasons.

Texas Supremes say respondent must prove outcry witness was not the first to be told about sexual offenses [In re Z.L.B.] (03-2-07).
On March 13, 2003, the Texas Supreme Court held that under the juvenile outcry statute the respondent bears the burden of proving that the outcry witness offered by the State was not the first person to whom the complainant told about the offense, rather than placing the burden on the State to establish that its witness was the first.

The juvenile court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate for an offense not alleged in the petition nor included in the offense that was alleged [In re D.D.] (03-2-6).
On March 13, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held that juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent of terroristic threat on a petition that alleged only retaliation, since terroristic threat is not a lesser included offense of retaliation.

It was ineffective assistance, but not prejudicial, for defense counsel to elicit at punishment pre-1996 juvenile adjudication [Chapa v. State] (03-2-05).
On March 12. 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that it was ineffective assistance of counsel  for defense counsel to elicit from defendant’s mother testimony about his juvenile adjudication, which would not have been admissible because it occurred before 1996. However, the testimony was not prejudicial, so the conviction is not set aside.

San Antonio Court of Appeals says only abuse of discretion review standard should apply to appellate review of juvenile court disposition decisions [In re K.T.] (03-2-04).
On March 12, 2003, the San Antonio Court of Appeals in an en banc opinion overruled one of its precedents to hold that appellate review of a juvenile court disposition should be by an abuse of discretion standard only, not by legal or factual sufficiency.

Guardian ad litem was not required to be present at a hearing in which respondent’s mother was present [In re W.D.M.] (03-2-03).
On March 6, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the respondent’s guardian ad litem (her aunt) was not required to appear at a hearing in which the respondent’s mother (the victim of the offense charged) appeared in the absence of evidence that the mother could not assist the respondent.

It was not error for juvenile court to start release/transfer hearing before 60 day deadline, but to complete it after the deadline [In re K.H.] (03-2-02).
On March 5, 2003, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to hold a release/transfer hearing under the determinate sentence act when it started the hearing before the 60 day deadline, but finished the hearing after the deadline.

Evidence is sufficient to support a burglary adjudication; it was not ineffective assistance for counsel not to object to hearsay [In re M.R.] (03-2-01).
On February 27, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence, including possession of stolen property, to support respondent’s adjudication of burglary of a habitation, at least as a party to the offense. The court also held that it was not effective assistance for counsel not to object to hearsay in light of the court’s earlier overruling of such an objection.

Admission of oral custodial statement in theft case was harmless in light of evidence of possession of recently stolen property [In re C.R.] (03-1-31).
On February 27, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held that if error it was harmless to admit the respondent’s oral custodial statement into evidence in view of her being in joint possession of a recently stolen motor vehicle.

Not error to permit juvenile probation officer to testify at penalty phase of criminal proceedings as to defendant’s behavior while on juvenile probation [Lindsay v. State] (03-1-30).
On February 27, 2003, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that the criminal court had discretion to admit testimony of the defendant’s juvenile probation officer about his conduct while on juvenile probation.

Allegation in petition that offenses were committed when respondent was 17 does not deprive juvenile court of jurisdiction [Martinez v. State] (03-1-29).
On February 20, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that an erroneous allegation in the transfer petition that aggravated robberies were committed when the respondent was 17 did not deprive the juvenile court of jurisdiction over the case.

Appeal waiver before juvenile court by respondent and attorney accepted by appellate court [In re B.K.M.] (03-1-28).
On February 13, 2003 the Houston First District Court of Appeals accepted as valid waiver of appeal an waiver before the juvenile court by the respondent and his attorney. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal although no motion to do so had been filed.

Certified juvenile may challenge juvenile court transfer after open plea in criminal court [Faisst v. State] (03-1-27).
On February 12, 2003, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a certified juvenile may contest the jurisdiction of the criminal court by challenging the juvenile court transfer even after entering an open plea of guilty in criminal court.

Okay for juvenile probation officer to testify at penalty though not on witness list; defendant should have anticipated JPO testimony [Hutchings v. State] (03-1-26).
On February 6, 2003, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant who had applied to the jury for community supervision should have anticipated that the State would call his juvenile probation officer to testify so it was not error to permit the testimony even though the officer’s name was not on a witness list.

Juvenile court did not err in committing juvenile with an attitude to TYC for burglary [In re J.J.N.] (03-1-25).
On February 6, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not err in committing a juvenile who displayed universal hostility to authority to the TYC for burglary of a habitation.

Attorney general says juvenile court may order child or parent to reimburse county for cost of service of summons [AG No. GA-0017] (03-1-24).
On January 29, 2003, the Texas Attorney General issued an opinion saying that a juvenile court may order the child and parent to reimburse the county for the costs of service of summons if the court adjudicates the child to have engaged in delinquent conduct or CINS. Parents can be ordered to pay only if the juvenile court has entered another order against them under Section 54.041.

Home removal findings for TYC commitment factually sufficient despite probation officer’s recommendation [In re C.R.H.] (03-1-23).
On January 30, 2003, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court’s removal from home findings were factually sufficient for a TYC misdemeanor commitment despite the supervising probation officer’s recommendation to keep the juvenile at home.

Failure to make parental notification claim before juvenile court waives it in attack on a confession [Lopez v. State] (03-1-22).
On January 23, 2003, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that failure of the juvenile to make a parental notification claim before the juvenile court waives that claim for appellate review.

Removal from home findings not required for probation revocation [In re J.P.] (03-1-21).
On January 23, 2003, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the removal from home findings required for dispositions do not apply to modification of disposition.

To revoke probation, association violation requires proof juvenile knew of other’s probation status; school records are admissible as public records [In re B.J.] (03-1-20).
On January 14, 2003, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that the State must prove the juvenile knew the status of his associate as a probationer in order to revoke for associating with an undesirable person. The court also held that school disciplinary records are admissible as public records and need not comply with the additional requirements for business records.

Okay for TYC to give judge in release/transfer hearing under determinate sentence act letters from juvenile; gatekeeper finding not required for expert testimony [In re C.D.T., III] (03-1-19).
On January 2, 2003, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not err in receiving letters from TYC written by the juvenile even though the lawyers were not advised of them. The court also held that in a release/transfer hearing there is no need for the gatekeeper hearing and finding that would be required in a trial for expert testimony.

Texas judge was under a duty to honor an Arizona request under the Interstate Compact on  Juveniles for return of a runaway [In re State of Texas] (03-1-18).
On January 16, 2003, the El Paso Court of Appeals in an original proceeding in mandamus ordered a Texas judge to honor an Arizona request for return of a runaway child under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles.

Statement of reasons and removal from home findings upheld in TYC commitment [In re J.P.R.] (03-1-17).
On January 14, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s statement of reasons in support of a TYC commitment was sufficient and that the court’s removal from home findings were factually sufficient.

Removal from home findings upheld for sex offense committed in a homeless shelter [In re J.R.] (03-1-16).
On January 9, 2003, the Amarillo Court of Appeals upheld a TYC commitment for aggravated sexual assault against a claim based on removal from home findings.

No abuse of discretion in TYC commitment [In re K.J.N.] (03-1-15).
On January 8, 2003,the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and committing the juvenile to the TYC.