2005 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
On November 7, 2005, the Attorney General opined that a professional school district employee may utilize corporal punishment to the extent permitted by other state law and school district policies.
On November 8, 2005, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the provisions of the Texas Family Code apply, allowing for a finding of indigence for appeal on either a hearing or an affidavit by the child's parent at the trial court.
On November 14, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that a trial court’s order transferring a determinate sentence probation to an appropriate criminal district court is not an appealable order.
On July 20, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a judicial confession standing alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction upon a guilty plea even if the defendant does nothing more than affirm that the allegations are true and correct.
On August 16, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that under Tex. R. Evid. 901(b)(7), documents may be authenticated by showing that they are from a public office authorized to keep such a records and they contain a certification showing that they are from the public office.
On October 31, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that a court ordered diagnostic examination was a "critical stage" of the adversarial proceedings and warranted the right of the juvenile to have counsel present where the examination served a "dual purpose" including being a source of incriminating evidence introduced at the juvenile’s trial.
On October 31, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that, although Appellant filed a motion for new trial, because the motion was filed more than thirty days after judgment, the motion was untimely, and the appellate court had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
On November 3, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that, in unauthorized use of motor vehicle prosecution, evidence was factually sufficient to support the juvenile court's judgment that showed that respondent knowingly exceeded the scope of his consent given by owner of vehicle.
On July 21, 2005, the Houston [14th Dist.] Court of Appeals, held that the evidence supported the inference that defendant knowingly killed a child because he knew that shooting his gun at a group of people was reasonably certain to result in a death and that any lack of specific intent to kill the child did not render the evidence insufficient to support his capital murder conviction.
On October 27, 2005, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that trial court did not follow plea bargain where plea bargain recited that child would be placed on one year probation in the home of his grandmother, and trial court ordered child detained in juvenile facility for a minimum of six months.
On October 28, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Cir.) held that evidence about appellant's incidents of misconduct and TYC's recommendation for transfer constituted enough evidence to supportive trial court's decision to transfer child to TDCJ.
On October 13, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that neither transcripts, evidence of rulings at trial, nor documents from co-respondent’s trial, constituted evidence of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism against respondent in motion to recuse.
On October 6, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that Penal Code Section 22.01, cannot be used to enhance a juvenile's misdemeanor adjudication for assault against a family member from a misdemeanor to a felony based on a prior misdemeanor adjudication for assault against a family member.
On September 29, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 53.04(d) (2002) did not require the State to plead former misdemeanor adjudications in order to commit a juvenile offender to TYC.
On September 30, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that evidence was legally sufficient to support jury's finding that respondent engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense of fraudulent use of identifying information resulting in subsequent commitment to TYC.
On September 30, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that testimony during the hearing to modify disposition concerning appellant’s mental status failed because the issue regarding lack of responsibility must be brought during the adjudication hearing.
On September 23, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals, held that testimony by victim were not impermissible statements regarding her wishes as to what type of punishment should be imposed, but were only statements concerning the impact of the crime (sexual assault) on her and her life.
On September 15, 2005, the Eastland Court of Appeals reversed a TYC commitment, holding that the trial court lost jurisdiction because a docket sheet entry extending appellant’s probation was insufficient, the order extending jurisdiction (probation) must be in writing and signed by the judge.
On August 31, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that, in a felony-murder prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to establish the mens rea to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (the underlying felony), and did not relate to the mens rea of the lesser included offenses of criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.
On August 31, 2005, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that, in juvenile cases, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the disposition is signed unless a party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the judgment, a motion to reinstate under Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a, or a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The procedures established in Anders apply to juvenile appeals. [In the Matter of A.R.B.]( 05-4-07)
On August 31, 2005, the El Paso Court held that the procedures established in Anders apply to juvenile appeals.
On August 31, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that evidence, could be properly excluded, if it was offered to allow the jury to consider a witnesses' assertions of their Fifth Amendment rights, even if trial court did not state that as the reason for exclusion.
On August 31, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion and conducted a "full investigation and hearing" as required by the Texas Family Code without live testimony from the author of a psychological report.
On June 15, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that utilizing the totality of the circumstances presented, officers drew from specific and reasonable inferences which gave them reasonable suspicion to immediately conduct a pat-down search.
On June 15, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that this (case-by-case) routine traffic stop was "presumptively temporary and brief" and as a result, non-custodial, and questions asked by the officer were not considered custodial interrogation.
On August 25, 2005, the Houston (1st Dist.) Court of Appeals held that jeopardy attaching when a jury is empaneled and sworn, concerning adult criminal defendants, applies equally to a juvenile proceedings.
On August 16, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that copies of orders of adjudication, granting probation and modifying disposition were properly self-authenticated because they contained the seal of the County Court and the signature of the County Juvenile Court Clerk.
On August 18, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that there is no requirement that the admonishments required for acceptance of guilty pleas be given at a hearing on a motion to modify, because the original admonitions from the adjudication hearing carry over into the disposition.
On May 25, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the evidence did not show that obeying his mother's instructions was immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm or that avoiding the harm clearly outweighed the harm sought to be prevented by the condition of his court-ordered probation.
On May 25, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that variance in proof and allegations in Motion to Modify were not material or fatal since respondent never complained of being misled by the motion or being surprised by the State's proof at trial.
On July 7, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that in a Motion to Modify, when a child's attorney appears, does not file a motion for continuance, and the child and parents are present and fully advised by the court as to the issues before the court, reasonable notice is presumed.
On August 11, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that a juvenile court commitment to TYC for escape was not double jeopardy, where respondent had already received administrative sanctions by TYC for the same escape.
On August 11, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals concluded that a five month delay was not "presumptively prejudicial" and as a result respondent’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not abridged.
On August 11, 2005, the Beaumont Court of Appeals held that with respect to fees and costs, a seperate evidentiary hearing was not necessary to show that parents "have by wilful act or omission, contributed to, caused, or encouraged [child’s] delinquent conduct."
On June 24, 2005, the Dallas (5th Dist.) Court of Appeals held that the evidence under the proper standards, was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that respondent committed burglary of a building.
On June 28, 2005, the Dallas Court (5th Dist.) of Appeals did not agree that the trial court committed appellant to TYC because he refused to attend church.
On August 4, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals found that a witness’s statement to victim police officer was not "testimonial" in nature and as a result did not violate Crawford v. Washington.
On August 4, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that there was no evidence that counsel's performance failed to constitute reasonably effective assistance of counsel.
On August 4, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that Court ordered psychiatrist testifying that appellant had the capacity to commit murder and knew the wrongfulness of his action did not violate his rights under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and former article 46.02, section 3(g) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
On April 6, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed a TYC commitment finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that all resources had been expended on probation, or that child posed a threat to the community.
On April 13, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, in a Motion to Modify hearing, the confrontation clause was not violated by a probation officer testifing that appellant's mother informed her that appellant was not at home during his curfew hours.
On June 6, 2005, the Texarkana Court held that, in a prosecution for Retaliation, if there is no evidence of the crime alleged in the petition, there cannot be a retaliation against a witness to that crime.
On July 26, 2005, the Texarkana Court held that if the state alleges the offense of "Retaliation Against a Witness," the witness must be one who has testified in an official proceeding, as apposed to being a prospective witness, who is one who may testify in an official proceeding.
On July 27, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a TYC commitment based on a second misdemeanor adjudication requires that the conduct (of the second adjudication) occur after the date of the previous adjudication, not previous disposition.
On July 7, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court exercised its supervisory power to require that all custodial interrogation of juveniles be electronically recorded where feasible, and without exception when questioning occurred at a place of detention.
On February 3, 2005, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the evidence was factually and legally sufficient to prove that respondent had sexual intercourse with the child-victim.
On July 14, 2005, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the 2003 amendment to Section 54.05(k) of the Texas Family Code did not increase punishment for prior conduct, therefore, in this respect was not an ex post facto violation for child placed on probation prior to act.
On July 14, 2005, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that a violation of probation occurring prior to a previous motion to modify hearing (placing child on probation) may be used for new (second) motion to modify (committing child to TYC).
On Aril 1, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by transferring juvenile to the TDCJ and that its decision was firmly rooted in defendant's identifiable misconduct while at TYC.
On June 30, 2005, the Beaumont Court of Appeals used the civil rules in their harmless error analysis (The trial court's error is reversible if it probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment) in trial court’s failure to conduct reliability hearing for outcry witness.
On June 29, 2005, the Court of Criminal Appeals released their corrected opinion, holding that when a statement is obtained in violation of TFC §52.02, it is the defendant’s burden to produce evidence demonstrating the causal connection, the burden then shifts to the State to either disprove the evidence produced, or establish that the causal chain asserted by the defendant was in fact broken.
On June 23, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the record included factually and legally sufficient evidence to justify the disposition ordering juvenile committed to the TYC.
On June 23, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that a 911 call was made to a "public safety answering point" employee.
On June 23, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Motion to Suppress Confession for failure to comply with TFC 51.095.
On June 14, 2005, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding all evidence regarding the drug test results on the bases of reliability and jury confusion.
On June 15, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that utilizing the totality of the circumstances presented, officers drew from specific and reasonable inferences which gave them reasonable suspicion to immediately conduct a pat-down search.
On June 15, 2005, the Austin Court of Appeals held that this (case-by-case) routine traffic stop was "presumptively temporary and brief" and as a result, non-custodial, and questions asked by the officer were not considered custodial interrogation.
On June 1, 2005, the Eastland Court of Appeals recognized that the United States Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have held that trial courts can determine dispositions, so long as they do not increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum for the crime.
On June 16, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that a trial court abused its discretion, when during the disposition phase of an aggravated sexual assault trial, it admitted evidence of an unadjudicated sexual assault against another child.
On February 23, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals found no evidence in the record that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the victims' statements reliable and that the testimony from the outcry witness bore sufficient indicia of reliability with respect to the time, content, and circumstances of the statements for the testimony to be admissible pursuant to Texas Family Code § 54.031.
On June 9, 2005, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that under the principle known as curative admissibility, the admission of improper evidence cannot be asserted as grounds for reversal on appeal where the defendant, on direct examination, gives testimony establishing the same facts as those to which an objection was raised.
On June 8, 2005, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that when a statement is obtained in violation of TFC §52.02, it is the defendant’s burden to produce evidence demonstrating the causal connection, the burden then shifts to the State to either disprove the evidence produced, or establish that the causal chain asserted by the defendant was in fact broken.
On April 14, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that the trial court did not abuse it’s discretion by entered an order transferring juvenile from TYC to TDCJ to complete the remainder of his 7-year determinate sentence for the offense of Aggravated Assault and Theft.
On June 6, 2005, the Texarkana Court held that if there is no evidence of the crime alleged in the petition, there cannot be a retaliation against a witness to that crime.
On June 6, 2005, the Texarkana Court held that if the state alleges retaliation against a witness, the witness must be one who has testified in an official proceeding, as apposed to being a prospective witness, who is one who may testify in an official proceeding.
On February 23, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held motion to sever six counts of aggravated sexual assault proper because legal elements of proof were similar for each victim, the cases shared common witnesses and fact patterns, and defendant made no showing that evidence of the extraneous offenses would not have been admissible in severed cases.
On February 23, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that, as applied to juveniles, the registration procedure was nonpunitive in both intent and effect and therefore could not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
On April 14, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals [5th Dist] held that appellant’s physical aggressiveness, non-school attendance, association with negative peers and lack of suitable placement was sufficient for commitment to TYC.
On April 14, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that trial court did not abuse its discretion where TYC representative testified about numerous incidents of misconduct by juvenile and recommended transfer to TDCJ.
On May 18, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that evidence of juvenile’s behavior and threats at the time of arrest were admissible to show his consciousness of guilt.
On May 19, 2005, the Houston Court of Appeals [1st Dist.] held that when appellant pleaded guilty without objecting to transfer of jurisdiction from juvenile court to district court, he failed to preserve any complaint for appeal.
On February 3, 2005 the Fort Worth Court of Appeals found that the State's petition, which tracked the language of the criminal attempt statute and stated the offense allegedly attempted, gave defendant fair notice of the offense charged
On April 28, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that a trial court's questioning of appellant during disposition hearing did not constitute fundamental error, and appellant had to object in order to preserve error for appeal.
On April 13, 2005, the US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit held that district attorneys, police detectives, and a child protective services supervisor, had no liability under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action because state judge who admitted the unlawful confession was a superseding cause of plaintiff minor’s injury.
Strip searches of high school students to find money unconstitutional. [Beard v. Whitmore](05-2-33)
On April 4, 2005, the 6th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals ruled that strip searches of high school students to find money was unreasonable, however, the teachers and officer were entitled to qualified immunity.
On April 20, 2005, the Waco Court of Appeals held that the State's burden does not decrease once a mistake of fact defense is raised; rather, the State must disprove the defense by proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
On April 14, 2005, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that evidence in murder trial was sufficient to support charge on law of parties and jury’s verdict on lesser offense of aggravated assault.
On April 13, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, in Motion to Modify hearing, confrontation clause not violated by probation officer testifing that appellant's mother informed her that appellant was not at home during his curfew hours.
On April 21, 2005, the Houston Court of Appeals (1st Dist.), held that Appellant's trial counsel waived error when she conceded she had had an opportunity to review all of the TYC's reports and never objected to the failure to receive them more than twenty-four hours before the beginning of the hearing.
On April 14, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in committing child to TYC in light of aggressive behavior and no available placement facilities for the child.
On April 14, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that the trial court did not abuse it’s discretion by entered an order transferring juvenile from TYC to TDCJ to complete the remainder of his 7-year determinate sentence for the offense of Aggravated Assault and Theft.
On March 31, 2005, the Texas Attorney General opined that section 58.007 of the Family Code does not allow the disclosure of juvenile records involving allegations of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision to juvenile’s parent.
On April 6, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed a TYC commitment finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that all resources had been expended on probation, or that child posed a threat to the community.
On March 15, 2005, the Texas Attorney General opined that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is neither a "juvenile justice agency" or a "criminal justice agency" and can not receive reports restricted under section 58.007 of the Family Code.
Jury instructions considered proper in capital murder adjudication. [Vargas v. State](05-2-23B)
On March 31, 2005, the Houston Court of Appeals (1st Dist.) held, in a capital murder adjudication, that since the jury instruction was a correct statement of the law, it was not a comment on the weight of the evidence.
On March 31, 2005, the Houston Court of Appeals (1st Dist.) held that defendant’s statement "I don't want to do this," was ambiguous (regarding termination of interview) and therefore his statement was admissible.
On Aril 1, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by transferring juvenile to the TDCJ and that its decision was firmly rooted in defendant's identifiable misconduct while at TYC.
On December 22, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals, in denying application for personal bond pending determinate sentence appeal, found that the benefits that the defendant was receiving at TYC outweighed the detriments of his continued commitment.
On December 15, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals could not say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering defendant transferred from TYC to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his determinate sentence.
On November 10, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that trial court did not abuse its discretion in placing juvenile on probation outside of home on contempt of JP court order.
On November 3, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that because defendant did not raise his complaints in the trial court regarding inadequate notice and that the conditions of his confinement were cruel and unusual, the appellate court held that defendant waived these contentions.
On November 10, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals denied defendant’s request for rehearing holding appellant has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in placing juvenile on probation outside his home.
On December 8, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals, en banc, (on rehearing) withdrew their previous opinion and affirmed trial courts decision to place juvenile outside the home on a charge of burglary.
On February 3, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that an affirmative link existed when a baggie of marijuana was found in plain view, with a noticeable odor in the car, and the substance is conveniently accessible to the driver.
On March 17, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that a juvenile’s request to call his mother to be an unambiguous request for an attorney when request was followed by statement that he wanted his mother to ask for an attorney.
On March 1, 2005, the U.S. District Court (S.D.Tex.) refused to substitute counsel hired by grandparents for counsel hired by mother, after mother had been removed as conservator for the child.
On February 17,2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals in a per curiam opinion held that a juvenile court had broad discretion in determining a suitable disposition and will not reverse the juvenile court's decision absent a clear abuse of discretion
On February 17, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the Family Code does not permit juvenile defendants to appeal from section 54.051 (determinate sentence probation) transfers from juvenile court to district court.
On February 17, 2005, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in committing child to TYC and Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 59.014 does not permit a juvenile to bring an appeal which is based upon the failure of the trial court to make a disposition pursuant to the sanction level guidelines.
On February 3, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals held (on stipulated evidence) that the smell of marijuana coming from vehicle, a baggie of marijuana ("later found to be approximately 3.26 grams") and rolling papers on the front passenger floorboard affirmatively linked respondent driver and establishes that the marijuana was a "usable quantity."
On November 29, 2004, in a per curiam opinion, the Amarillo Court of Appeals abated and remanded appeal because notice had been sent to appellant's counsel that the brief had not been filed and counsel did not respond.
On December 23, 2004 the El Paso Court of Appeals did not view defendant's evidence as being so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to have been clearly wrong or unjust.
On December 23, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals did not find that the evidence was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust and further that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the judgment.
On November 3, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals, held that the juvenile’s constitutional rights were not violated when the trial court permitted a TYC representative (Cucolo) to testify based on a report summarizing the child’s behavior while at TYC.
On February 23, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that six acts of aggravated sexual assault involving five different victims, could be consolidated into one juvenile trial under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
On February 23, 2005, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that the sex offender registration statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment when applied to juveniles because it is nonpunitive in both intent and effect.
On February 23, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals found no evidence in the record that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the victims' statements reliable and that the testimony from the outcry witness bore sufficient indicia of reliability with respect to the time, content, and circumstances of the statements for the testimony to be admissible pursuant to Texas Family Code § 54.031.
On February 24, 2005, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally sufficient even though the only evidence linking appellant to the crime were two fingerprints on a surge protector that the stolen electronics were plugged into.
On February 9, 2005, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that an admission by the criminal defendant and testimony by a parole officer were sufficient proof of identity.
On February 3, 2005, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the evidence was factually and legally sufficient to prove that respondent had sexual intercourse with the child-victim.
On February 3, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held en banc that a motion for new trial is required to preserve error for factual insufficiency.
Juvenile felony adjudication admissible in adult penalty proceedings [Parrish v. State] (05-1-18)
On the February 2, 2005, the Waco Court of Appeals held that evidence of a felony juvenile adjudication is admissible in adult criminal proceedings.
On January 31, 2005, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that notice by the State on the day trial began of the State’s intent to introduce evidence of a prior felony adjudication by the criminal defendant was sufficient.
On January 20, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the juvenile’s stipulation in a motor vehicle "keying" case as to the value of the damage was sufficient proof of that element of the offense of criminal mischief.
On January 13, 2005, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that a 13-year-old child cannot legally consent to the commission of the offense of unlawful restraint upon her, nor factually did she consent.
On January 13, 2005, the El Paso Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a disposition order because notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the juvenile was placed on probation.
On December 23, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the failure of the juvenile court judge to admonish the respondent as to his rights is not reversible error in the absence of an contemporaneous objection by defense counsel.
On December 22, 2004, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that evidence of a defendant’s prior juvenile disposition is admissible at criminal sentencing if the criminal court finds that it is relevant to sentencing.
On December 23, 2004, the El Paso Court of Appeals analyzed the factors relied upon by the juvenile court to justify the commitment of a repeat misdemeanant to TYC and found factual support for each.
Delay in notifying parent of arrest was justified; confession admissible [Ray v. State] (05-1-10)
On December 23, 2004, the Houston First District Court of Appeals, on appellant’s motion for rehearing, held that delays in notifying a parent of the appellant’s arrest were justified, making the confession admissible.
On December 22, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals denied personal bond on appeal because of the benefits the juvenile was receiving from the TYC treatment programs.
Plea of true to motion to revoke probation made appeal frivolous [In re L.J.G.] (05-1-08).
On December 16, 2004, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that appellate counsel’s assessment that the appeal from probation revocation was frivolous was supported by the record that the juvenile plead true to probation violations.
On December 15, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring a juvenile from TYC to TDCJ following multiple disciplinary violations, including assaults.
On December 13, 2004, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a juvenile must take the affirmative step of filing a timely notice of appeal to obtain appellate review. The standard of Section 51.09—that a right exists unless waived in a specified fashion—does not apply to notices of appeal.
On December 9, 2004, the Houston Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that because he failed to make a timely complaint under Code of Criminal Procedure article 4.18 the juvenile waived any underage claim that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction.
On December 8, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed a May 2004 decision that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed a child on probation outside his home; the en banc court held there was no abuse of discretion because there was inadequate supervision in the home.
On December 8, 2004, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that a written statement given by a juvenile to police was admissible without following Family Code procedures since the juvenile was not in custody at the time the statement was given.
On December 2, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a police officer’s discovery of marijuana on the person of a juvenile for whom there was an outstanding felony arrest warrant was lawful without regard to the lawfulness of the officer’s question of the juvenile whether he had anything illegal on him.
On December 2, 2004, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the juvenile did not preserve error in the failure of the juvenile court to find that the State exercised due diligence in the post-18 year old revocation of the juvenile’s probation.