Error to revoke misdemeanor probation when no adjudication prior to the probation adjudication was shown [In re C.S.] (03-1-14).On December 31, 2002, the Tyler Court of Appeals held in an argument presented for the first time on appeal that the juvenile court lacked authority to revoke misdemeanor probation when no adjudication prior to the probation adjudication was shown.
The affirmative finding punishment scheme for group bias is not facially unconstitutional [In re M.P.] (03-1-13).On December 31, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the provision in the Penal Code enhancing punishment upon an affirmative finding of group bias in selecting the victim is not facially unconstitutional.
Evidence sufficient to support aggravated assault with a golf club by a juvenile on his probation officer [In re R.M.] (03-1-12).On December 19, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient for aggravated assault when the juvenile threatened his probation officer with a golf club during a home visit.
Evidence was sufficient to support finding that juvenile operated a motor vehicle without its owner’s consent [In re A.L.R.] (03-1-11).On December 19, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that respondent was operating a motor vehicle to support an adjudication for unauthorized use.
No evidence of extrensic fraud in bill of review proceedings when complainant recanted her testimony [In re M.P.A.] (03-1-10).On December 19, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the juvenile petitioner had not made a claim for relief in bill of review proceedings since there was no evidence of prosecutorial involvement in any false testimony presented by the complainant in the underlying juvenile proceedings.
Not ineffective assistance for defense counsel to prevent diagnostic examination in certification proceedings [Montgomery v. State] (03-1-09).On December 12, 2002, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that it was not ineffective assistance of counsel for the juvenile’s lawyer to prevent his client from being subjected to a psychological and psychiatric examination as part of the certification process.
Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.07 provision limiting prior offenses to post-1995 offenses does not apply to adult adjudications [Brooks v. State] (03-1-08).On December 12, 2002, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the provision limiting misdemeanor adjudications to those after 1995 applies only to juvenile adjudications, not to adult convictions.
Prior history of offenses and on probation justified commitment to TYC [In re N.A.P.] (03-1-07).On December 11, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile’s prior offenses and history of probation violations justified the juvenile court’s commitment to the TYC.
Evidence is factually sufficient to support aggravated assault as a probation violation [In re C.S.H.] (03-1-06).On December 10, 2002, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that evidence was factually sufficient to support an finding of aggravated assault by breaking an arm as a violation of probation.
Error in date of prior conviction allegation in criminal case does not convert adult conviction into juvenile adjudication [Houston v. State] (03-1-05).On December 10, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a mistaken date allegation does not convert an adult conviction allegation into an juvenile delinquency allegation. Defendant pleaded true to the allegation so cannot challenge sufficiency of the proof.
The State has no right to appeal from dismissal of a juvenile case resulting from a pre-trial suppression order [In the Matter of S.N.] (03-1-04).On December 5, 2002, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the Code of Criminal Investigations Division Procedure does not give the State the right to appeal in juvenile cases.
Transfer to TDCJ under determinate sentence act in hearing with mental health testimony upheld on remand from court of appeals [In re R.D.B.] (03-1-03).On December 5, 2002, the Beaumont Court of Appeals agreed with counsel that the appeal from a transfer to TDCJ was frivolous. The case had initially been remanded by the court of appeals on the ground that counsel was ineffective in not obtaining the services of a mental health expert to testify at the release or transfer hearing. This time an expert testified and the juvenile court still transferred the juvenile.
Interpreter not required for parent of juvenile charged in justice or municipal court [JC-0584] (03-1-02).On November 26, 2002, the Texas Attorney General opined that Chapter 57 of the Government Code does not require the appointment of an interpreter for the parent of a juvenile charged with a criminal offense in a justice or municipal court.
Arson of school proved by juvenile setting fire to toilet paper and dispenser [In re C.S.B.] (03-1-01).On December 5, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals upheld an adjudication of arson of a school upon proof that the juvenile set toilet paper and a dispenser on fire.
Threat to stomp juvenile probation officer’s ass was criminal retaliation for official actions [Spears v. State] (02-4-23).On November 20, 2002, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that a threat made in a meeting by the father of a juvenile respondent to stomp the ass of the juvenile probation officer assigned to his son’s case was criminal retaliation. The motive for the threat was official, not exclusively personal.
Evidence sufficient to support charge of unauthorized use of motor vehicle and of leaving the scene of an accident [In re W.T.O.] (02-4-22).On November 21, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the respondent’s statement to police was sufficient to support his adjudication for the authorized use of his father’s motor vehicle and for leaving the scene of an accident with an unattended vehicle.
Appeal of bargained conviction on pre-trial juvenile motion not permitted because motion not ruled upon [Christentary v. State] (02-4-21).On November 19, 2002, the Amarillo Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal from a plea bargained conviction taken on a pre-trial juvenile suppression motion because there was no showing the juvenile court ruled on the motion.
Court of Appeals abates appeal to allow juvenile court to determine its status and whether the juvenile needs representation [In re Posadas] (02-4-20).On November 15, 2002, the Amarillo court of Appeals abated an appeal on which no action had been taken since receipt of the record to allow the juvenile court to determine whether the appeal has been abandoned and if not what needs to be done to move it along.
San Antonio Court of Appeals requires three misdemeanor adjudications to authorize a TYC commitment on misdemeanor probation revocation [In re S.B.] (02-4-19).On November 6, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals joined the Beaumont, Fort Worth and Austin Courts of Appeal in holding that to revoke misdemeanor probation and commit a child to the TYC the State must prove three separate misdemeanor adjudications and that a probation violation cannot count as one of them.
Evidence was sufficient that juvenile possessed 100 pounds of marijuana under the back seat of a car where he was seated [In re B.D.G.] (02-4-18).On October 31, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the respondent was in possession of 100 pounds of marijuana that was stuffed under the back seat where he was seated.
Evidence was factually and legally sufficient to support home removal findings in modification and TYC commitment [In re W.J.W.] (02-4-17).On October 31, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that adequate efforts had been made to prevent the need for removal of the respondent from his home.
Three hour delay before transporting detained juvenile to station OK because he was not in custody until transported [Dang v. State] (02-4-16).On October 31, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that a delay of almost three hours during which the juvenile was detained in a police car before being transported to a juvenile processing office was not unnecessary because the juvenile was not in custody until transported.
Juvenile court judge who was elected prosecutor when juvenile was prosecuted is disqualified to sit on habeas case [In re K.E.M.] (02-4-15).On October 24, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that a juvenile court judge who was the elected county attorney when the juvenile habeas applicant was prosecuted is disqualified to judge the habeas claim. The judge as prosecutor had no involvement in the juvenile’s prosecution other than as head of the office.
Intermediate Care Facility may be civilly liable for murder by violent retarded juvenile in its care [Texas Home Management v. Peavy] (02-4-14).On October 31, 2002, the Texas Supreme Court held that an Intermediate Care Facility in which MHMR had placed a juvenile might be liable for a murder committed by that juvenile while home on furlough.
Evidence was sufficient for aggravated assault adjudication by chocking in act of playing “passout” [In re J.A.P.] (02-4-13).On October 17, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals upheld an adjudication for aggravated assault by recklessly causing serious bodily injury by chocking the victim in a game of “passout” on a school playground.
Juvenile’s father lacks standing to appeal a plea bargained disposition; home removal findings supported by record [In re A.E.E.] (02-4-12).On October 17, 2002, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that a father lacks standing to appeal from a plea bargained disposition of his daughter’s case. The court also held that the home removal findings were supported by the record and that the court’s statement of reasons for disposition, supplied on abatement, were adequate.
02-4-11Police officer talking to juvenile was voluntary encounter, not stop, and search that uncovered crack was consensual [In re D.G.] (02-4-11).On October 10, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that an officer, acting on an unverified tip from an un-tested informant who confronted a juvenile suspected of dealing in crack cocaine did not stop the juvenile but engaged in a voluntary encounter with him and that a subsequent search was with the juvenile’s consent.
Criminal defendant has no discovery right to juvenile records of state’s witnesses without showing that the records exist [Dixon v. State] (02-4-10).On October 3, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the defendant in a criminal case of sexual abuse against minors has no discovery right to the juvenile records of the State’s complaining witnesses in the absence of evidence that any of them had records.
El Paso Court applies objection because of age statute as a waiver of in personam jurisdiction over the juvenile [In re E.D.C.] (02-4-09).On October 3, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that section 51.042 of the Family Code provides for a waiver of in personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction, and upheld the validity of the statute on that basis.
Search by police officer of pocket of baggy trousers worn on school campus was lawful without probable cause or a warrant [Russell v. State] (02-4-08).On April 10, 2002, the Waco Court of Appeals held that a law enforcement officer could search the pocket of baggy trousers for a weapon or contraband on school campus when the student refuses to empty the pocket at the request of school officials.
Parental notification one and one-half hours after taking into custody prompt when prior efforts failed [In re L.B.J.] (02-4-07).On September 26, 2002, the Beaumont Court of Appeals held that notification given to the father concerning taking the juvenile into custody one and one-half hours after arrest is prompt when officer made six unsuccessful prior attempts to notify the juvenile’s mother.
Requiring parental notice of reason for taking into custody doesn’t require notice of interrogation purpose [Hampton v. State] (02-4-06).On September 25, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that telling a juvenile’s mother that he was being arrested on a directive to apprehend for probation absconding complied with statutory notice requirement. Officer was not then or later required to notify parent that child might be questioned about murder.
Failure to object to judicial admonition deficiencies at adjudication hearing waives claim on appeal [In re R.J.C.] (02-4-05).On September 11, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that failure of the defendant to make a timely objection as required by a 1997 amendment to the Family Code to the juvenile court’s admonition deficiencies waives the claim on appeal.
Statute requiring pre-trial objection in criminal court for failure to certify from juvenile court is constitutional [Rushing v. State] (02-4-04).On September 11, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that Code of Criminal Procedure article
4.18, which requires a pre-trial objection to failure of the juvenile court to certify a juvenile case to criminal court, does not violate the prohibition on separation of powers.
Factual basis in proceedings before associate judge for $12,900 restitution order against parent in burglary case [In re B.B.] (02-4-03).On September 4, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld an order of restitution against a parent for $12,900 for property damage and loss in a burglary case. There was a factual basis for the order based on the respondent’s participation in the offense.
Harmful error to allege and prove for enhancement a juvenile adjudication and commitment for a pre-1996 offense [Sims v. State] (02-4-02).On August 20, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a juvenile adjudication for an offense that was committed before 1996 cannot under Family Code Section 51.13(d) be used to enhance punishment in criminal proceedings.
Private journal properly seized and read as a valid school search [Goldberg v. State] (02-4-01).On August 22, 2002, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that campus police lawfully seized and read a private journal kept by the defendant. It was seized as a valid school search.
Evidence supports adjudication and twenty year sentence for recklessly killing a ten year old child [In re J.D.P.] (02-3-36).On August 22, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld a jury adjudication and disposition in a case in which the respondent recklessly killed a companion with a handgun.
Juvenile court abused its discretion in finding unavailability of child witness but admission of taped testimony was harmless [In re C.Y.] (02-3-35).On August 15, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not make the constitutionally-required finding of unavailability to authorize admission of tape of interview. However, in view of the respondent’s admission into evidence of a similar, later tape, the error was harmless.
Retaliation petition that tracks statutes ok; evidence sufficient for retaliation adjudication [In re B.P.H.] (02-3-34).On August 15, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld an adjudication for retaliation and related offenses based on threats made by respondent to fellow students at his middle school when he allegedly was planning a “Columbine style” attack on teachers and students.
El Paso Court says removal from home findings required to modify probation by placing the child outside his home [In re S.R.R.] (02-3-33).On August 15, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the removal from home findings required by Section 54.04 apply to modification of disposition to place a child outside his or her home.
Evidence was sufficient to uphold an adjudication for aggravated sexual assault by contact committed by a 10 year old [In re R.R.] (02-3-32).On August 14, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that a 10 year old is capable of forming the intent or knowledge necessary to commit the offense of aggravated sexual assault by contact.
Junk car owner not qualified to testify as expert as to amount of damage to windows; evidence insufficient as to amount of loss [In re I.R.H.] (02-3-31).On August 8, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the owner of junk cars was not qualified as an expert to testify as to the loss sustained when windows were broken. It also held that the evidence was insufficient to prove loss of more than $1500 and less than $20,000.
Assault on public servant adjudications upheld for contact with classroom teacher and aide [In re J.L.O.] (02-3-30).On August 8, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals upheld assault on public servant adjudications for contact with a classroom teacher and aide. The respondent knew both were district employees, which is sufficient. It is not also necessary that he know the legal proposition that school district employees are public servants.
Attorney General says that a parent has a right to see school counseling recording on his or her child [JC-0538] (02-3-29).On August 7, 2002, the Texas Attorney General said that under federal and state law a parent has a right to see school counseling records on his or her child, subject to a very narrow exception.
No discretion abuse in transferring youth to TDCJ who was already incarcerated there on capital murder offense [In re T.W.] (02-3-28).On August 8, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring respondent to TDCJ. He was already confined there on a capital murder charge and had accumulated numerous disciplinary infractions in TYC and TDCJ.
Evidence sufficient to support adjudication for graffiti writing with indelible instrument [In re A.F.] (02-2-27).On August 1, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that evidence was sufficient to support an adjudication for graffiti writing with an indelible instrument even though the instrument was not introduced into evidence.
Error, but harmless, to admit a delinquency adjudication at the penalty phase of a criminal trial when the State did not provide notice requested by the defense [Johnson v. State] (02-3-26).On August 1, 2002, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the State did not respond to defendant’s request for notice with respect to a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication and therefore that the trial court erred in permitting the adjudication to be received into evidence at the penalty phase of a criminal prosecution. However, considering the punishment assessed, the error was harmless.
Removal from home findings not required for probation revocation [In re M.M.] (02-3-25).On July 31, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the removal from home findings required for disposition by section 54.04(i) do not apply to modification of disposition and revocation of probation. It also held that revocation for leaving the county without permission is ok.
Evidence is factually sufficient to support boot camp probation in school burglary case [In re J.C.C.] (02-3-24).On July 25, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that evidence of a school burglary was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s order placing respondent in a long term boot camp.
Removal from home findings not required for modification of disposition [In re A.V.] (02-3-23).On July 24, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the removal from home findings required in disposition proceedings is not required in modification proceedings.
Capital murder certification approved, but no probable cause for certification of burglary charges [In re M.A.V.] (02-3-22).
On July 24, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld the certification of a juvenile for seven counts of capital murder, while reversing and rendering for insufficiency of probable cause for several burglary charges. This was the fourth attempt to certify this respondent for these offenses.
Error to admit school report of anger event in aggravated assault trial, but harmless in light of other evidence of history of anger [In re L.R.] (02-3-21).
On July 11, 2002, the First District Court of Appeals held that while it was error under Rule 404(b) to admit a school report of an anger event, it was harmless in view of the other evidence of respondent’s anger.
Failure to disclose pending charges against juvenile state’s witness not a violation of due process [Lora v. State] (02-3-20).
On July 11, 2002, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that it was not a violation of due process for the State not to disclose that one of its witnesses has pending juvenile charges. The evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
Notice of arrest can be given to adult cousin as custodian; two and one-half hour delay in giving notice ok [Vann v. State] (02-3-19).
On June 27, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that notice of arrest can be given to an adult cousin of the juvenile since she was an adult with whom he lived; the court also held that a two and one-half hour delay in providing that notice did not make a confession inadmissible.
Unadjudicated juvenile offenses are admissible at the penalty phase of a criminal trial [Strasser v. State] (02-3-18).
On June 27, 2002, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that under article 37.07 of the Code of Criminal Investigations Division Procedure unadjudicated juvenile offenses are admissible at the penalty phase of a criminal trial. The authorization in that same article that juvenile felony or jailable misdemeanor adjudications are admissible does not preclude the admissibility unadjudicated juvenile offenses.
No abuse of discretion in revocation of 13-year-old’s probation for repeated burglaries [In re R.R.G.] (02-3-17).
On June 27, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals upheld the juvenile court’s revocation of probation of a 13-year-old for repeated burglaries. It did so by applying, under its district precedent, the factors in Section 54.04 relating to removal from home.
Court of Appeals dismissed pre-trial appeal for lack of jurisdiction [In re D.B.] (02-3-16).On June 26, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals dismissed an attempt by the juvenile to appeal directly from denial of a motion to suppress without waiting for adjudication. There is no authority to appeal under that circumstance without agreement of all the parties, which was not present here.
Court of Criminal Appeals remands question of admissibility of statement taken out-of-state to Court of Appeals [Vega v. State] (02-3-15).On June 26, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals considered the question of the admissibility of a statement given by respondent to the Chicago Police Department that complied with Illinois law but not with Texas law. The court decided that the Court of Appeals should first address the question under Texas law as to the admissibility of such a statement.
Supplemented record shows petition and summons were personally served on respondent [In re L.A.C., Jr.] (02-2-14).
On June 20, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that a return of service in a supplemented record created a presumption not rebutted that the respondent was personally served with petition and summons.
Appeal from modification dismissed as moot when respondent discharged from probation upon becoming 18 years old [In re N.N.D.W.] (02-3-13).
On June 20, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that an appeal from a modification but not revocation of probation was mooted when the juvenile was discharged from probation upon her 18th birthday.
Defendant in criminal trial cannot cross-examine witness about being on juvenile probation without proof he is on probation [Ordaz v. State] (02-3-12).On June 20, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant was properly precluded from cross-examining a State’s witness about being on juvenile probation to show bias in favor of the State without proof that the witness was in fact on juvenile probation.
Evidence supports order requiring parents to pay restitution to victim of child’s burglary [In re B.B.] (02-3-11).
On June 20, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court had a factual basis in the evidence for its order that the parents pay the victim of their child’s burglary $12,900 in restitution for damages caused during the offense.
Respondent’s failure to participate in sex offender treatment justified probation revocation [In re C.C.] (02-3-10).On June 20, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld revocation of probation and commitment to the TYC for failure of the respondent to participate in a sex offender treatment program. Respondent refused to participate after his father angrily departed a family therapy session.
Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring child to TDCJ [In re B.R.] (02-3-09).On June 12, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring under the determinate sentence act a juvenile from TYC to TDCJ.
TYC commitment OK when placements rejected respondent because of his sexual orientation [In re C.J.H.] (02-3-08).
On June 13, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals upheld a TYC commitment based on part on refusal of several placements to accept respondent because of concerns over his safety due to his sexual orientation.
Respondent’s probation history supports TYC commitment [In re K.R.] (02-3-07).
On June 12, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile history on probation was factual sufficiency for its decision to commit the respondent to the TYC.
Written confession not proved to be a product of an earlier, inadmissible oral statement [Horton v. State] (02-3-06).
On May 31, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the respondent failed to prove that his written statement was a product of his earlier, inadmissible oral statement. The Court of Appeals also held that failure to bring the respondent promptly to a juvenile processing office requires statement exclusion only upon a showing of a causal connection between the two events.
Failure to object to lack of proof of age waives claim for appeal [In re J.S.] (02-3-05).
On May 30, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the respondent did not preserve for appeal the absence of proof by the State of his age because he failed to object in a timely fashion in the trial court.
Certification investigation was complete and evidence was sufficient for transfer to criminal court [Price v. State] (03-3-04).
On May 30, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the certification investigation complied with the statutory requirement of completeness and that the evidence was sufficient to support transfer to criminal court; however, the Court of Appeals ordered credit on the prison sentence for time spent in juvenile detention.
Evidence supports respondent’s guilty as party; criminal requirements for continuance motion applied [In re C.G.] (02-3-03).
On May 30, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals upheld the respondent’s adjudication as a party to robbery; it also held that under criminal procedure rules a motion for continuance must be in writing to preserve error.
Texas Supreme Court says oral correction of unlawful written statement is admissible in evidence [In re R.J.H.] (02-3-02).On May 30, 2002, the Texas Supreme Court held that when the respondent telephoned the investigating officer to correct comments he had made in a written statement that had been taken in violation of the Family Code, the oral statements were admissible in evidence because he was not in custody and he was not coerced into making them.
Error for juvenile court to charge jury on definition of reasonable doubt, but harmless; evidence sufficient for terroristic threat in school adjudication [In re C.S.] (02-3-01).On May 24, 2002, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that it was error for the juvenile court to give the jury the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that was previously required by Geesa v. State, but that because the instruction favors the defense, giving it was harmless error.
Removal from home findings supported by evidence [In re R.E.A.] (02-2-23).On May 16, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court’s removal from home findings supporting placement in a book camp as a condition of probation was supported by the evidence.
Testimony about juvenile probation admissible at penalty phase of criminal trial [Horn v. State] (02-2-22).
On May 15, 2002, the Beaumont Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly admitted at the penalty phase of a criminal trial the testimony of a juvenile probation officer about the defendant’s juvenile probation.
Offense of disrupting school activity requires proof of intent to disrupt [JC-0504] (02-2-21).On May 15, 2002, the Attorney General stated that the offense of disrupting school activity requires proof that the student or other person intended by his or her conduct to disrupt in the manner defined by law. It is not sufficient that the person intended to engage in conduct that in fact had the consequence of disrupting a school activity.
Evidence supports juvenile court’s removal from home findings in modification of disposition proceedings [In re. V.J.C.] (02-2-20).
On May 15, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that under its ruling in In the Matter of L.R. there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s modification of disposition removal from home findings.
Revocation of probation for technical violations only upheld [In re J.L.S.] (02-2-19).On May 8, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that revocation of probation and commitment to the Texas Youth Commission was justified for technical violations of failure to report and failure fully to perform required community service hours.
Volunteered, non-custodial statement given at crime scene was admissible [In re R.G.] (02-2-18).On May 8, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a confession to marijuana use made by the juvenile respondent on the street was admissible because it was non-custodial and voluntary.
Statement to mother by child victim of sex offense admissible in adjudication proceedings as excited utterance [In re E.S.] (02-2-17).
On May 2, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld the admission into an adjudication hearing of a mother’s testimony as to statements made by her son concerning a sex offense committed against him on the grounds of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
Court of Criminal Appeals vacates confession decision [State v. Simpson] (02-2-16).On April 24, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated a parental notification confession case for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals in light of Gonzales v. State.
Juvenile court did not err in certifying respondent for trial in criminal court [Price v. State] (02-2-15).On April 24, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not err in certifying the respondent for trial in criminal court and that defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance at the certification hearing.
Attorney General approves of school’s policy on physical restraint of students [JC-0-491] (02-2-14).On April 15, 2002, the Texas Attorney General opined that the policy of the Arlington Independent School District regarding the physical restraint of students was lawful under Texas law.
Due process violated when juvenile court revoked probation for the same offense for which the probation term had earlier been extended [In re J.L.D.] (02-2-13).
On April 18, 2002, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that due process was violated when the juvenile court revoked probation for the same probation violation that had been considered in earlier proceedings and had resulted in an extension of the probation term.
Failure to report allegation in motion to modify sufficient; hearsay objection to drug test result made too late [In re C.O.] (02-2-12).
On April 17, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld a probation revocation against a challenge that the motion to modify did not contain sufficient notice of the failure to report violation it alleged and that the probation officer should not have been permitted over a hearsay objection to testify as to the result of a drug test.
Statement was excluded because questioning by police officer in school was custodial and no warning of rights was given [In re D.A.R.] (02-2-11).
On April 4, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that a juvenile’s statement that led to recovery of a handgun was inadmissible in evidence because the juvenile was in police custody at school and had not been given his Miranda warnings.
Court of Criminal Appeals vacates and remands a confession/parental notification case to the Court of Appeals [Pham v. State] (02-2-10).
On April 10, 2002, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals a case in which it had held that a confession should have been excluded from evidence for failure of the police to notify parents their child had been taken into custody. It did so in light of Gonzales v. State, in which it had held that a causal connection between the failure to notify and the obtaining of the confession must be shown.
Admitting testimony about recovery of stolen property was harmless error (on remand from Court of Criminal Investigations Division Appeals) [Roquemore v. State] (02-2-09).
On March 28, 2002, the Houston First District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a certified juvenile, finding that the erroneous admission of testimony that he led officers to stolen property was harmless in light of his own testimony.
Personally notifying parent justified one hour delay in bring child to juvenile processing office [Coffey v. State] (02-2-08).
On March 21, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a one hour delay in bringing a child taken into custody to the juvenile processing office was justified by personally notifying the child’s mother of the arrest.
Not error to admit evidence of theft by respondent at fitness to proceed hearing [In re M.A.S.] (02-2-07).
On March 20, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court judge did not err in admitting testimony at the fitness to stand trial hearing of evidence that the juvenile committed a theft.
Failure to object or file motion for new trial waives claim on appeal that judge was biased in modification proceedings [Tatum v. State] (02-2-06).
On March 11, 2002, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the juvenile respondent had by failure to object or file a motion for new trial waived a claim that the juvenile court judge by his remarks demonstrated bias against the juvenile in disposition modification proceedings.
Defense attorney cannot appeal adjudication of direct contempt; must use habeas [White v. State] (02-2-05).
On March 7, 2002, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a juvenile’s attorney, who was held in direct contempt of court for her conduct during a detention hearing, cannot challenge that ruling by appeal but must instead use habeas corpus.
Requirement of disclosure of written matter at modification hearing applies only to second phase of the hearing [In re D.S.S.] (02-2-04).
On March 6, 2002, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the requirement of disclosure of written matter in Section 54.05 applies only to the second or “penalty” phase of the modification hearing.
Not a violation of double jeopardy for district court to revoke probation when associate judge has recommended probation continuation [In re D.G.] (02-2-03).
On March 5, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a district court judge can without violating double jeopardy principles reject the recommendation of an associate judge that the respondent be continued on probation and instead revoke probation and commit the child to the TYC. The associate judge proposes and the district court judge disposes.
Three misdemeanor adjudications required for TYC commitment on modification [In re A.I.] (02-2-20).
On February 28, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals joined the Beaumont and Fort Worth Courts of
Appeal in holding that three misdemeanor adjudications are required to authorize commitment to TYC as a modification of misdemeanor probation.
No abuse of discretion in committing suicidal respondent to TYC on modification of probation [In re J.H.] (02-2-01).
On February 20, 2002, the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld a modification and commitment to TYC of a respondent who had severe emotional problems and who had attempted suicide. Commitment was justified because local resources had been exhausted.
No abuse of discretion in probation revocation and TYC commitment [In re J.H.] (02-1-30).
On February 20, 2002, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and committing respondent to the TYC based on his admission of three probation violations.
Criminal defendant must comply with special appeal notice rule to challenge certification in appeal from plea bargained sentence [Woods v. State] (02-1-29).
On February 20, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a criminal defendant who wishes to challenge a juvenile court certification in a criminal appeal must comply with the plea bargaining notice of appeal requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to do so.
Evidence was sufficient to support fitness finding and certification to criminal court for capital murder [Jimenez v. State] (02-1-28).On February 14, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeal, in an appeal from a conviction for capital murder, upheld the juvenile court jury’s finding that defendant was fit to proceed to certification hearing. The Court of Appeals also upheld the juvenile court’s decision to certify defendant to criminal court for prosecution as an adult.
OK for prosecutor at penalty phase of criminal proceedings to question defendant’s mother about the details of a juvenile offense [Romo v. State] (02-1-27).On February 14, 2000, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that the criminal court judge did not err in permitting the prosecutor at penalty to question the defendant’s mother about the details of an aggravated robbery for which her son had received probation as a juvenile.
Failure to notify parents of arrest doesn’t require exclusion of confession absent proof of a causal connection [Gonzales v. State] (02-1-26).On February 13, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Investigations Division Procedure does not permit exclusion of a custodial confession by a juvenile for failing to notify parents of the arrest absent some causal connection between the failure to notify and the confession.
Attorney General explains relationship of county and school district to JJAEP [JC-0459] (02-1-25).On February 8, 2002, the Attorney General answered several questions about the powers and duties of counties and independent school districts toward juvenile justice alternative education programs.
Three adjudications required for revocation of misdemeanor probation [In re N.P.] (02-1-24).On January 31, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that three separate adjudications are required to authorize a juvenile court to revoke misdemeanor probation.
Insufficient evidence that pointing BB gun at officer was deadly conduct [In re M.C.] (02-1-23).On February 7, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals held that there was no evidence that a BB gun was capable of causing serious bodily injury when there was no evidence the gun was loaded or even capable of being fired.
Juvenile was not in custody when he confessed to arson [In re R.M.F.] (02-1-22).
On February 6, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a juvenile voluntarily accompanied an arson investigator to his office and was not in custody when he gave a written statement confessing to arson.
Evidence was sufficient to show respondent aided murder by providing weapons and disposing of body [In re K.C.A.] (02-1-21).
On February 1, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld an adjudication and determinate sentence for murder on evidence that while the respondent did not personally commit the offense he did provide weapons with which it was committed and did assist in disposing of the body.
Statement not in indictment of intent to enhance penalty with juvenile felony adjudication is sufficient notice in criminal proceedings [Parker v. State] (02-1-20).
On January 30, 2002, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that written notice by the State in advance of trial of intent to use a juvenile felony adjudication and commitment to enhance punishment for second degree felony to that of a first degree felony was sufficient notice. That notice is customarily, but not necessarily, contained in an enhancement paragraph in an indictment.
Attorney General says that justice court cannot order three days’ detention in juvenile facility for contempt of court [JC-0454] (02-1-19).
On January 28, 2002, the Attorney General opined that a justice court lacks the authority to refer a contempt of court case to the juvenile court with an order that the juvenile facility confine the child for a period of time. A referral is subject to juvenile court release/detention decisions, as is any other delinquency referral.
Probable cause shown for murder arrest; after initial refusal, juvenile’s decision to give a statement to police was voluntary [In re M.M.J.M.] (02-1-18)
On January 25, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that although the juvenile initially refused to give a statement to police in a murder investigation his change of mind was voluntary so the resulting statement was admissible.
Certified juvenile entitled to credit on prison sentence for time spent in juvenile detention before transfer [Delgado v. State] (02-1-17).
On January 10, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that a certified juvenile is entitled to credit on his prison sentence for time he spent in juvenile detention before certification to criminal court.
Admitting in criminal trial juvenile probation officer’s opinion about defendant’s state of mind at time of offense was harmless error, if error [Brockman v. State] (02-1-16).
On January 10, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a criminal court judge’s ruling permitting a juvenile probation officer to testify that the defendant had not suffered from a psychotic break when he stabbed the victim to death was harmless error if it was error at all.
The certification study was not deficient; it was incomplete because the juvenile refused to cooperate with the psychologist [Ortega v. State] (02-1-15). On January 7, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a certification study was not fatally incomplete because the missing information could have come only from the respondent and his family who, on advice of counsel, refused to cooperate with the psychologist.