2004 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
Police notification of parents was prompt because the delays were justified [Ray v. State] (04-4-21).
On November 18, 2004, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the police promptly notified defendant’s parents of her arrest. Delays caused by determining which agency had jurisdiction over the case and obtaining defendant’s mother’s telephone number were justified.
On August 11, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals denied a writ of mandamus directed at a prosecuting attorney on the ground it lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ and denied the writ against the trial court on the ground it had already ruled on the underlying habeas petition.
On November 10, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in placing a child on probation outside the child's home when the only offense adjudicated was contempt of a justice court.
On November 4, 2004, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court judge in a capital murder determinate sentence adjudication hearing did not error in restricting the length of respondent's jury voir dire; respondent's questioning of a witness opened the door to questions about respondent's prior offenses.
On November 3, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that it was not error for the juvenile court judge in a release/transfer hearing under the determinate sentence act to permit a TYC official to testify about facts learned from other TYC employees.
On October 29, 2004, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that a police officer lacked authority to detain a juvenile respondent after the juvenile signed a traffic citation; further, respondent's consent to search his automobile was coerced when given after the officer said he was calling the canine squad for a sniff around.
On October 27, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals in an assault on a teacher case held that administrative regulations dealing with the use of force in school were not relevant to the case and that the prosecutor's explanations for strikes were race-neutral.
On October 26, 2004, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the defendant did not prove that his plea of guilty in criminal court was involuntary because he did not understand that his juvenile record could be used against him before the jury at punishment.
On October 21, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that trespass on school grounds in the Education Code and criminal trespass in the Penal Code are not in pari materia and therefore the prosecutor may charge either when a trespass occurs on school grounds.
On October 14, 2004, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that failure to serve the certification petition and summons on the respondent's father created a jurisdictional defect in the certification proceedings, requiring setting aside a criminal conviction.
On May 20, 2004, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals held that respondent had failed to prove his lawyer was ineffective in not moving to dismiss criminal charges because of underage.
On October 13, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in removing respondent from his home and placing him in a treatment center following adjudication for aggravated sexual assault.
On November 10, 2004 the San Antonio Court of Appeals, on motion for rehearing from its decision of October 13, 2004, upheld the juvenile court's disposition of probation outside the home under the court's abuse of discretion standard.
On October 13, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld an evading arrest adjudication on evidence the respondent ran from a school resource officer while on campus.
Failures at probation placements justified commitment to TYC [ In re G.W.] (04-3-07).
On September 30, 2004, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the respondent's unsuccessful discharge from two probation placements for rules violations and self-harm conduct justified commitment to the TYC.
On September 24, 2004, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in revoking determinate sentence probation instead of transferring respondent to criminal court for continued supervision as an adult.
On August 23, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that state district court judges are not entitled to judicial immunity for decisions they made as members of an adult probation judicial board which provided oversight for a boot camp in which a resident died.
TYC commitment upheld under abuse of discretion standard of review [In re A.W.] (04-4-04).
On September 8, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the jury sentence of 10 years to the TYC was not an abuse of discretion under the Court's global abuse of discretion standard.
On September 8, 2004, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that even if a confession was obtained outside of a juvenile processing office, the respondent must show that violation of law caused the statement in order to keep the statement out of evidence.
On September 3, 2004, the Texas Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment a newspaper could not be held liable in a defamation lawsuit for a satirical story about a juvenile court judge's handling of an imaginary case.
On August 26, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that failure of defense counsel to object to a question asking about a juvenile adjudication to impeach the testimony of the defendant was not ineffective assistance of counsel since it may have been part of counsel's trial strategy.
Only parent ordered to pay restitution may challenge it on appeal [In re D.D.H.] (04-3-31).
On August 26, 2004, the Beaumont Court of Appeals held that only a parent ordered to pay restitution may challenge it on appeal; the juvenile may not do so on behalf of the parent.
No abuse of discretion in committing repeat probation violator to TYC [In re A.D.B.] (04-3-30).
On August 19, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in committing respondent to the TYC in view of the repeated offenses he committed and the chances he was given on probation.
On August 12, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court used reasonable efforts to avoid removing respondent from his home and committing him to the TYC in view of the home conditions.
On August 12, 2004, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals held that police who had set up a sting to buy drugs had reasonable suspicion to detain a passenger in the drug-transporting vehicle described by the seller to police in a telephone conversation.
On August 5, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that failure to appoint an interpreter for the respondent's hearing-impaired mother was not error before the 2003 amendment in Section 51.17.
On August 5, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the respondent's plea of true, judicial confession and stipulation of evidence were sufficient to sustain that element of burglary that requires entry without the effective consent of the owner.
On August 5, 2004, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it required a juvenile on probation under deferred sex offender registration to register as a sex offender.
On July 29, 2004, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that a tape recorded confession to murder was properly admitted into evidence even though it closely followed obtaining a possibly inadmissible oral custodial confession.
On July 27, 2004, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that the evidence supports the juvenile court finding of best interest of the respondent by committing him to TYC for an assault on a teacher in a juvenile justice alternative education school.
On July 20, 2004, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that probation can be extended within one year of its expiration if a motion to revoke was filed before it expired; unlike in criminal cases, it is not required that a capias also be issued before expiration.
No discretion abuse in transferring child from TYC to TDCJ [In re J.D.P.] (04-3-21).
On July 15, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the child from TYC to TDCJ even though the child was not provided while in TYC with specialized treatment for his emotional disturbance.
Cannot revoke misdemeanor probation with proof of only two adjudications [In re C.B.J.] (04-3-20).
On July 14, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court cannot revoke probation based on only two misdemeanor adjudications. A dissenting opinion disputed this interpretation of the statute.
On July 15, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that an anonymous tip by a student to a hall monitor did not provide reasonable suspicion for a search of the person of a student by an assistant principal which led to the seizure of marijuana.
On July 15, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the social history report, which was admitted into evidence without objection at the modification hearing, was a sufficient evidentiary basis for showing that the respondent was on probation for a felony, thus authorizing TYC commitment.
On July 7, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held that a running objection to extraneous offense testimony did not preserve error when the same testimony was later presented by another witness without further objection.
On July 8, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's commitment of the respondent to the TYC for aggravated sexual assault.
On July 7, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reject the defense that the respondent beat his brother at the direction of his mother and in doing so was exercising the right of parental discipline.
On July 1, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that it is not a violation of equal protection of the laws for the juvenile law definition of insanity to provide more protection for the respondent than the adult definition provides for the criminal defendant because of the social reasons underlying having a separate juvenile justice system.
On July 1, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the respondent's acknowledgment of the correctness of the allegations in the petition was a sufficient stipulation of evidence to support the adjudication.
On July 1, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to revoke the probation of an 18 year old when the modification petition was filed before he became 18 and the State exercised due diligence; the Court also held that it has no jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of a probation condition in an appeal from revocation.
On July 1, 2004, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that the respondent had not preserved error in his claim that the trial court unduly restricted his time for jury voir dire; the Court also held that notice under Rule 404(b) is not required when the State cross examined a defense witness who had opened the door on respondent's prior juvenile record.
On July 1, 2004, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that evidence of the respondent's juvenile "deferred adjudication" and its violation were properly admitted in the penalty phase of his criminal trial for aggravated robbery.
On June 30, 2004, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that there was no violation of equal protection or due process in using the defendant's juvenile record as penalty evidence in his capital murder prosecution.
Evidence was factually sufficient to support a burglary adjudication [In re J.A.D.] (04-3-08).
On June 23, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the evidence was factually sufficient to support an adjudication for burglary and that a witness' mention that the respondent was on parole did not require a mistrial.
On June 18, 2004, the Texas Attorney General opined that it is not a violation of the constitutional powers of the District Attorney for the legislature to give the juvenile probation department the power to screen misdemeanors not involving violence or weapons.
On June 17, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals granted appellate counsel's motion to withdraw from representation on the ground the appeal was frivolous, but did so only after carefully reviewing the record independently for errors.
On June 10, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court had violated the respondent's constitutional right through counsel to make a closing argument, but that the error was waived by failure to object to the denial.
On June 16, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held there was insufficient evidence that a metal pipe was used as a deadly weapon in an aggravated assault case. The judgment was reformed to show an adjudication for misdemeanor assault.
On June 3, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not error in revoking probation for not participating in programs and for disciplinary violations while in secure placement.
On June 2, 2004, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court erred when it revoked misdemeanor probation based on two prior offenses that were adjudicated in the same proceeding.
On June 1, 2004, the United States Supreme Court held that the fact that the suspect was a juvenile is not a factor to be taken into account in determining whether the suspect was in custody during police interrogation.
On May 26, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict rejecting the defense that respondent disciplined his brother as agent of their mother in a trial for injury to a child.
On May 26, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court abused its discretion in placing the respondent on probation outside his home without evidence that the placement program was appropriate to his needs.
On May 20, 2004, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that there was no evidence that the respondent did not understand warnings from the magistrate prior to making her confession; any error was harmless because her trial testimony confirmed the details of her confession.
On May 14, 2003, the Texas Supreme Court held that Texas law does not require the three removal from home findings required for a disposition prior to revocation of probation.
On May 13, 2004, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that allegations in an aggravated assault case that the deadly weapon knife used was "large" and a "pocket knife" were not material; therefore, the sufficiency of the evidence is assessed without regard to whether those allegations were proved.
On May 12, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held that a police officer had probable cause to take a juvenile into custody for failure to identify; the cocaine seized from his person as an incident to that arrest was properly admitted into evidence.
On May 13, 2004, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that defendant's plea of true to a 1991 adjudication precluded his challenge that the adjudication was inadmissible in the criminal trial because it occurred before 1996.
On May 7, 2004, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support an adjudication for aggravated sexual assault even though the CPS videotape was inadmissible except to impeach.
On May 6, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that there was no fatal variance between an allegation of striking a public servant and proof that the respondent scratched the public servant.
On April 29, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that failure of the placement facility to follow a case plan for psychiatric treatment is not grounds for reversing a decision to revoke probation for failure to cooperate with the program.
On April 29, 2004, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals held that a psychiatric report, although hearsay, is admissible in a certification hearing; there is no requirement that the report's author must testify at the hearing.
On April 29, 2004, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that although an indictment of a certified juvenile was void because the juvenile court did not have the juvenile personally served, the juvenile was not entitled to expunction of criminal records because there was a failure to prove he had not been convicted of a felony within the five years preceding his arrest.
On April 28, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a police officer was justified in conducting a weapons frisk of a juvenile during a daytime curfew stop because of the clothing worn by the juvenile.
On April 22, 2004, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the adjudication of respondent for aiding in the operation of his mother's car without her consent. There was no evidence he knew that his older brother lacked his mother's consent to operate the vehicle.
On April 22, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court judge at disposition can consider the information contained in the social history report even if the report is not formally admitted into evidence.
On April 22, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the evidence in a street encounter involving a gang was factually insufficient to support adjudications for coercing gang membership and engaging in organized criminal activity.
On April 21, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals upheld a transfer of the respondent from TYC to TDCJ under the determinate sentence act and held that the TYC official who testified could testify as to what other TYC employees had stated about respondent's behavior while in TYC.
On April 21, 2004, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court's departure on advice of the probation department from progressive sanctions guidelines to commit the respondent to the TYC is not reviewable on appeal.
Evidence supports removal from home findings in modification proceedings [In re J.K.R.] (04-2-16).
On April 15, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals applied its requirement that the removal from home findings control in probation revocation proceedings but found that the evidence supported the findings.
On April 8, 2004, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that in a criminal trial counsel was not ineffective in asking the court at sentencing to disregard his client's juvenile record as included in the presentence investigation report.
Court accepts Anders brief while addressing arguable errors [In re D.L.] (04-2-14).
On April 8, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals accepted appointed appellate counsel's Anders brief claiming that the appeal is frivolous.
On April 6, 2004, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that juvenile adjudications were not admissible in a criminal trial to correct a false impression but one was admissible to rebut a claim of self-defense and admission of the other, while error, was harmless.
On April 1, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals upheld the TYC commitment of a Mexican national for smuggling marijuana into the United States because of lack of supervision in his home and lack of American placement alternatives.
On April 1, 2004, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient proof of the manner and means by which respondent killed her newly-born son to support the adjudication of murder.
No evidence first amended adjudication petition was not served on respondent [In re P.L.] (04-2-10).
On March 30, 2004, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that merely because the summons recited that the petition was attached, rather than the first amended petition, that was not sufficient, in light of other evidence presented, to prove that the first amended petition was not served.
On March 26, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals, applying standards developed for criminal cases, held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the respondent to withdraw a waiver of jury trial.
On March 26, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals joined five other courts of appeal in holding that a TYC commitment for a misdemeanor probation violation requires three separate adjudications.
On March 25, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a delay for four days in sending referee's report to judge was okay and that failure to return to custody in secure detention following furlough was escape from custody.
On March 10, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support an adjudication that respondent operated the motor vehicle of the owner without his consent, burglarized another vehicle as a party, and evaded arrest.
On February 26, 2004, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals held that while it was error to admit respondent's written statement into evidence because it was taken in an adult area of the police station, the statement attempted to be exculpatory, and admission was therefore harmless.
Defense counsel not ineffective during modification hearing [In re R.N.] (04-2-04).
On February 26, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the defense attorney did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when he agreed to a stipulation regarding a probation violation.
Appeal abated for juvenile court to determine if respondent is represented [In re J.M.R.] (04-2-03).
On February 26, 2004, the Amarillo Court of Appeals abated an appeal when no brief was filed for the respondent to permit the juvenile court to determine if respondent is represented on appeal.
Racing on the highway by a juvenile is a traffic offense [AG No. GA-0157] (04-2-02).
On February 24, 2004, the Attorney General opined that racing on the highway by a person under 17 is a traffic offense that is in the jurisdiction of justice and municipal courts, not juvenile courts.
On February 22, 2004, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that a juvenile court judgment of adjudication was properly admitted into evidence in the penalty phase of a criminal trial as a self-authenticated public record.
On November 25, 2003, the Texas Attorney General issued an opinion in which he stated that the Grand Prairie police department could not release to the Grand Prairie School District the names of juveniles cited for minor in possession of alcohol.
Accomplice testimony in burglary case corroborated [In re A.M.] (04-1-23).
On February 19, 2004, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that accomplice testimony in a burglary case was sufficiently corroborated by eyewitness identification of respondent as being at the scene of the burglary and recovery of stolen property from respondent's house.
On February 11, 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the constitutional rights to be competent when tried applies to release/transfer hearings under the determinate sentence act, that an oral motion for a psychiatric examination is sufficient, but that in this case the TYC reports were sufficient to rebut any inference of probable cause to believe that the respondent was not competent.
On February 5, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that respondent's plea of true was not involuntary because he erroneously believed himself eligible for probation on the Mexican National Children's Program; the Court also held that J.S.S., dealing with the privilege against self-incrimination in the pre-disposition report, should be restricted to its facts.
On February 6, 2004, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient legally and factually to support adjudications for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child.
On February 5, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that when the juvenile court erroneously adjudicated respondent for two sex offenses and then imposed a twenty-five year sentence for a third offense, it was required to hold a new disposition hearing to re-consider its sentence in light of the acquittals.
On January 29, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that questioning of witnesses by the juvenile court showed it considered the statutory factors in deciding to transfer respondent to TDCJ under the determinate sentence act.
Probation report authorized court to place runaway in secure confinement [In re E.D.] (04-1-17).
On January 29, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the probation department's report on a runaway complied with the requirements of Section 54.04(n) and thereby authorized the juvenile court to modify disposition and place the respondent in a local secure facility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.