Juvenile Law Section of the State Bar of Texas

2008 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

Failure to object to TYC commitment at time of hearing or by post-trial motion waives complaint (08-4-7)

On October 30, 2008, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that a complaint that a sentence to TYC is unjustified, unreasonable, inappropriate and disproportionate to the seriousness of the alleged violation of probation, is waived if not made either at the time of the hearing or by any post-trial motion.

The three-year minimum time requirement for a TYC stay is not a statutory minimum to stay at TYC.[In the Matter of J.B.C.](08-4-6)

On October 9, 2008, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals in a per curium decision held that the three-year minimum time requirement for a first degree felony concerns a limitation on TYC's power to release, not a statutory minimum time requirement to stay at TYC.

State may prosecute a juvenile for the offense of prostitution, even though juvenile cannot legally consent to sex.[In the Matter of B.W.](08-4-5)

On October 2, 2008, the Houston (1 Dist.) Court of Appeals held that a juvenile may be adjudicated for the offense of prostitution and said adjudication did not lead to an absurd result, violate due process of law, or offend public policy.

In a juvenile case, appellate counsel who files a motion to withdraw as counsel and who believes his appeal is frivolous may file an Anders brief. [In the Matter of K.M.](08-4-4)

On October 9, 2008, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that in a juvenile appeal, appellate counsel may successfully withdraw as counsel and inform the court that appellant’s appeal in frivolous by meeting the requirements of Anders v. California.

The strict prohibition against amendment of pleadings in criminal cases is not applicable in juvenile proceedings.[In the Matter of T.A.](08-4-3)

On September 4, 2008, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that allowing the State to amend the pleading to correct the misspelling of the victim's name did not prejudice appellant and was not unfair to appellant.

Three to six months in residential placement, is not necessarily three to six months residential placement.[In the Matter of M.A.H.](08-4-2)

On August 28, 2008, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that a commitment to residential placement for a period of not less than three (3) months, but no more than six (6) months, or until said child is successfully discharged by the facility, does not restrict the commitment to less than six (6) months.

Prior juvenile felony adjudication is not prior felony for the purposes of applying for probation in adult court. [Thompson v. State](08-4-1)

On August 29, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in prohibiting respondent from discussing probation at voir dire, where reason for prohibition was respondent’s prior juvenile felony adjudication. Error was deemed harmless.

Previous promise to commit to TYC by court not error in Motion to Modify.[In the Matter of R.S.](08-3-13)

On July 3, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals held that there was no error where the record contained evidence independent of an earlier court's admonishment and on which the trial court appears to have relied in reaching its disposition of commitment to TYC.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding when and how to modify a juvenile's disposition.[In the Matter of R.A.N.](08-3-12)

On July 3, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a trial court has broad discretion in deciding when and how to modify a juvenile's disposition.

Juvenile enhancement allegations need not be included in an adult indictment.[Gamble v. State](08-3-11)

On June 26, 2008, the Houston Court of Appeals (1 Dist.) held that thirty days notice to introduce juvenile adjudication as an enhancement in adult trial was sufficient.

Motion to Quash in juvenile case is not a Special Exception.[In the Matter of R.R.](08-3-10)

On June 18, 2008, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that it could not apply the rules governing special exceptions on appeal, where juvenile filed and only referred to his Motion to Quash during trial.

Transfer hearing allowed where child over 19 years of age at time of hearing.[In the Matter of T.G.](08-3-9)

On June 19, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals held that because the Texas Family Code provides for the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction for transfer or release "without regard to the age of the person," it had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in ordering the transfer of T.G. to the custody of the TDCJ to serve the remainder of his determinate sentence.

For admission of juvenile confession, notification within one and one-half hours satisfies the section 52.02(b) requirement of prompt notice.[Weir v. State](08-3-8)

On June 11, 2008, the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld a motion to suppress. In obtaining a juvenile confession, prompt notice to parent of arrest and the taking of the confession, not directly related.

Failure to determine whether child understands the nature and content of his statement by magistrate warrants reversal.[Reta v. State](08-3-7).

On June 4, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed a case because the magistrate failed to examine respondent after he made his statement, or make any inquiry to determine that he understood the nature and contents of his statement.

In motion to modify appeal, trial court did not abuse its discretion in placing respondent on probation outside the home.[In the Matter of J.L.K.](08-3-6)

On June 4, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that in a motion to modify disposition, trial court did not abuse its discretion in placing respondent on probation outside the home.

Evidence insufficient to establish offense of burglary of a habitation, therefore, appellate court modified judgment replacing finding of burglary of a habitation with a finding of criminal trespass of a habitation.[In the Matter of F.H.](08-3-5)

On May 30, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals found, in burglary of a habitation appeal, where element of theft or attempted theft was not proved, appellate court could modified judgment to adjudicate for lesser offense of criminal trespass of habitation.

Evidence was sufficient to justify child engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense of criminal trespass.[In the Matter of T.M.](08-3-4)

On May 21, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that evidence was factually sufficient and the trial court was justified in finding that respondent engaged in delinquent conduct, having been found to have committed the offense of criminal trespass.

Trial Court can infer intent to damage building in arson adjudication.[In the Matter of H.A.G.](08-3-3)

On May 22, 2008, the Corpus Christi-Edinburg Court of Appeals held that after viewing the evidence in a neutral light, it was not so weak that the trial court's verdict seemed clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or that the verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

Respondent did not demonstrated that the Juvenile Court abused its discretion by committing him to TYC.[In the Matter of J.W.M.](08-3-2)

On May 15, 2008, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the court's finding that the respondent’s home was not an appropriate placement. Respondent argued that while in CPS custody, his "home" was Texas Hill Country (placement facility) and his "parent" was the State of Texas.

Violating Felony probation with an expulsion sufficient to warrant commitment to TYC.[In the Matter of A.T.M.](08-3-1)

On May 8, 2008, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse it’s discretion in committing child to TYC for expulsion while on robbery probation.

When there is a material variance between the allegation and the findings of the juvenile court, the evidence will be deamed insufficient and will result in an acquittal.[In the Matter of C.E.S.C.](08-2-16)

On April 23, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that when the trial court adjudicates on a manner of committing an offense not alleged in the petition, the respondent has no notice to defend himself on the manner not alleged, and as a result, the variance requires an acquittal of that charge.

Evidence deemed legally insufficient to support jury’s finding that school in arson adjudication was "within the limits of an incorporated city."[In the Matter of V.V.C.](08-2-15)

On April 23, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals concluded that in light of the State’s judicial admission that the School (in arson prosecution) was not "within the limits of an incorporated city," no rational fact finder could find that element, beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by the petition, jury charge, and arson statute.

In a determinate sentence case, an incorrect admonishment as to punishment, warrants reversal, if plea shown to be involuntary.[In the Matter of T.W.C.](08-2-14)

On April 24, 2008, the Houston Court of Appeals (1st Dist.) when an incorrect admonishment is made, but substantially complies (falls within the actual range of punishment), the burden shifts to appellant to show his plea was involuntary.

Initial inadmissible oral statement may taint later written statement.[In the Matter of J.A.B.](08-2-13)

On April 17, 2008, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that when a written statement is given after an inadmissible oral statement, the magistrate should explain to the juvenile that his prior oral statements may not be used against him.

In adult aggravated sexual assault trial, defendant was not required to file motions objecting to jury charge which did not restrict convictions to actions occurring after defendant’s 17th birthday.[Alberty v. State](08-2-12)

On April 9, 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that defendant was not required to file a motion objecting to the jury charge and therefore reverse and remand for consideration of whether a jury charge was erroneous because it did not limit the "on or about" language to any date prior to the date of the filing of the indictment, and on or after the appellant's seventeenth birthday, thus permitting the jury to convict him on the basis of testimony about numerous offenses alleged to have been committed while appellant was a juvenile.

A violation of Miranda Warnings does not justify the exclusion of physical evidence resulting therefrom.[In the Matter of H.V.](08-2-11)

On April 11, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court held that physical evidence that does not compel a defendant to testify against himself cannot be a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights that Miranda protects against, and if obtaining the evidence did not violate the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure the evidence is admissible.

Lack of causal connection nullifies failure to notify parent of juvenile’s arrest.[Hartmangruber v. State](08-2-10)

On March 19, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that because there was no causal connection between the failure to notify juvenile's father of arrest in accordance with section 52.02(b) of the Family Code and juvenile's decision to give his statement to police, no error was shown

Restitution can be ordered for rehabilitative purposes.[In the Matter of D.K.](08-2-9)

On March 19, 2008, the Dallas (5th Dist.) Court of Appeals concluded that restitution can be an effective means to impress upon a juvenile the serious consequences of delinquent behavior, including financial consequences.

Habeas relief granted where trial counsel’s performance considered deficient because counsel failed to know the law concerning use of a prior juvenile conviction for enhancement.[Ex Parte Hall](08-2-8)

On March 19, 2008, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals accepted the recommendation of the trial court to grant a new punishment proceeding because counsel's performance was deficient in failing to know the law concerning the use of a prior juvenile conviction and that deficiency prejudiced Applicant.

Trial court need not make a finding that the public safety requires a commitment to TYC.[In the Matter of E.F.Z.R.](08-2-7)

On March 13, 2008, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that since the trial court found that the child was in need of rehabilitation, it was irrelevant whether the protection of the child or the public required a disposition for commitment to TYC.

Defense of duress was not raised where evidence did not show that juvenile was compelled to participate in altercation by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.[In the Matter of V.M.H.](08-2-6)

On October 10, 2007, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that evidence that juvenile was taking orders or was instructed by his brother to remove victim's shoes and pants was not sufficient to raise the defense of duress.

Trial Court did not abuse it’s discretion by committing child to TYC for misdemeanor offense prior to September 1, 2007.[In the Matter of S.J.F.](08-2-5)

On October 10, 2007, the San Antonio Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse it’s discretion by committing child to TYC for misdemeanor offense prior to statute changing disallowing TYC commitments for misdemeanor offenses.

Failure to pay required appellate filing fee or establish indigence warrants dismissal of appeal.[In the Matter of M.A.F.](08-2-4)

On February 15, 2008, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that since appellant’s counsel did not pay required filing fee or establishing indigence, after being notified to do so, his appeal is dismissed.

Extraneous offense evidence allowed to show state of mind of respondent or child complainant.[In the Matter of M.M.L.](08-2-3)

On July 31, 2006, the Amarillo Court of Appeals held that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 38.37, applies to juvenile sexual assault adjudications where evidence bears on the state of mind of respondent or child complainant.

Evidence factually sufficient to prove Appellant's guilt as the primary actor or as a party in robbery.[In the Matter of F.J.S.](08-2-2)

On August 16, 2007, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that evidence was factually sufficient to support adjudication where the State offered evidence that Appellant either robbed victim at knife-point while an accomplish held a bat, or he held the bat while accomplish held the knife.

In a determinate sentence transfer hearing, report admitted into evidence by TYC psychologist did not violate child’s Fifth Amendment rights.[In the Matter of M.M.](08-2-1B)

On February 6, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals held that written reports from TYC psychologists (professionals) are admissible in a determinate sentence transfer hearings because TFC §54.11(d) specifically provides for it.

In determinate sentence transfer hearing, where psychological evaluation was admitted earlier in trial, later objection did not preserve error.[In the Matter of M.M.](08-2-1A)

On February 6, 2008, the Austin Court of Appeals held that in a determinate sentence transfer hearing, since the complained-of psychological evaluation objected to by respondent was admitted at the beginning of the trial, error was not preserved for appeal.

Stated reason in trial court’s disposition order was sufficient to commit child to TYC in Motion to Modify prosecution.[In the Matter of J.A.A.](08-1-15)

On February 6, 2008, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that trial court's stated reasons, as well as the statement in the disposition order that the child "is in need of a structured and therapeutic correctional environment" was sufficient to commit child to TYC.

In assault prosecution, the trial court is not required to appoint guardian ad litem for the child, where the parent is the victim of the assault.[In the Matter of L.A.P.](08-1-14B)

On February 6, 2007, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, if the parent is present, the trial court has the discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem only if the parent is not capable or willing to make a decision in the best interest of the child.

Conflict of Interest did not exist where attorney for the child was hired by parent in assault prosecution where parent was victim of the assault.[In the Matter of L.A.P.](08-1-14A)

On February 6, 2007, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that, until a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance.

Respondent not entitled to blood test of victim in sexual assault case to determine sexually transmitted disease.[In the Matter of C.B.](08-1-13)

On February 7, 2008, the Dallas (5th Dist) Court of Appeals held that Brady and its progeny do not require prosecuting authorities to disclose exculpatory information to defendants that the State does not have in its possession and that is not known to exist.

Trial court did not violate appeallant’s (adult) due process rights by appointing counsel for minor witness who's about to take responsibility for committing the offense in question.[Garza v. State](08-1-12)

On January 31, 2008, the Houston (1st Dist) Court of Appeals held that trial court did not violate appeallant’s due process rights by appointing counsel for minor witness who was facing juvenile charges, so the child may make an informed and voluntary decision to testify.

A juvenile has no right of confrontation at a transfer hearing because it is dispositional rather than adjudicative in nature.[In the Matter of F.D.](08-1-11)

On January 31, 2008, the Dallas (5th Dist) Court of Appeals held that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion for continuance to allow confrontation of psychologist in TYC report, when court in jeopardy of not holding transfer hearing before child’s twenty-first birthday.

No record of object to the trial court's failure to give statutory admonishments, does not properly preserved complaint for appellate review. [In the Matter of R.R.F.](08-1-10)

On January 10, 2008, the Corpus Christi-Edenburg Court of Appeals held that in a bench trial, if the record reflects no objection to the trial court's failure to give statutory admonishments, the complaint was not properly preserved for appellate review.

Witness with extensive experience and knowledge in the area of body shop estimation was able to testify as an expert.[In the Matter of C.D.S.](08-1-9)

On January 30, 2008, the Waco Court of Appeals held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow witness who had extensive experience and knowledge in the area of body shop estimation to testify as an expert.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution in the amount of $ 9,336.10, even where affidavit of indigency filed by child's father.[In the Matter of E.K.](08-1-8)

On December 14, the Dallas Court of Appeals (5th Dist.) held that the amount of restitution awarded by the trial court was designed to compensate the victim and there was no evidence in the record to show that it would not be possible for the family to jointly pay the restitution as ordered.

For a drug screen to be admissible, evidence must meet Daubert criteria.[In the Matter of D.W.P.](08-1-7)

On January 4, 2008, the Texarkana Court of Appeals held that for a drug screen to be considered reliable, evidence of its underlying scientific theory and the technique applying that theory must be valid.

Juvenile does not have the right to testify and the trial court is not required to admonish him of said right.[In the Matter of J.W.P.](08-1-6)

On December 20, 2007, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Ann. Art. 1.05, granting an accused adult the right to be heard, does not apply to juveniles.

A school police officer may conduct a pat-down search of a student on school grounds for the sole purpose of finding the student's identification card if he fails to produce it when asked to do so.[D.L. vs. Indiana](08-1-5)

On December 7, 2007, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that under the T.L.O., it was not unreasonable, in searching D.L. for his identification, to pat down his pant leg, and, following his attempt to place something down his pants, for a male police officer to shake his pant legs and to collect the green, leafy vegetation which fell out as a result.

Evidence did not show that juvenile knowingly waived his Miranda rights after being physically abused while in police custody.[Illinois v. Richardson](08-1-4)

On September 25, 2007, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that the State failed to meet its burden to show that juvenile’s injury, while in police custody, was unrelated to his confession, because appellate court was not convinced juvenile could separate the fear associated from being punched by the police from any subsequent interactions with other police officers or while in lockup.

Jury finding that the juvenile, in the juvenile’s home, could be provided with the quality of care and level of support and supervision to meet the conditions of probation, did not preclude commitment to TYC.[In the Matter of T.A.W.](08-1-3)

On August 9, 2007, the Houston [14th] Court of Appeals held that the jury’s answer of "We do not" to whether the jury believed that the Respondent, in his home, could not be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision to meet the conditions of probation, did not effect jury’s commitment to TYC.

Certification and Transfer statute is not unconstitutional even though it exposes juvenile to adult punishments.[Rivera v. State](08-1-2)

Findings by juvenile judge to transfer juvenile to adult court does not expose juvenile to a greater punishment even though the potential sentence in the adult criminal system is greater than that in the juvenile system.

Not every right set out by the magistrate need be waived by the juvenile to validate a confession.[In the Matter of J.L.](08-1-1)

Section 51.095(a)(5)(A) does not require that every right be individually waived either in writing or verbally, but only that the juvenile knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive each right.