2002 Case Summaries
2010 Summaries 2009 Summaries 2008 Summaries 2007 Summaries
2006 Summaries 2005 Summaries 2004 Summaries 2003 Summaries
2002 Summaries 2001 Summaries 2000 Summaries 1999 Summaries
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On December 5, 2002, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give the State the right to appeal in juvenile cases.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On June 27, 2002, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that under article 37.07 of the Code of Criminal 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On February 13, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.