By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Discrepency in date recited in certification
order and alleged in indictment not fatal to criminal prosecution (00-1-10)
On December 23, 1999, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that
the fact that a different date was recited in the certification order than was
alleged in the indictment did not preclude criminal proceedings for the
transferred offense.
00-1-10. Jones v. State, UNPUBLISHED, No. 01-90-00010-CR, 1999 WL 1240928, 1999
Tex.App.Lexis ____ (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 12/23/99)[Texas Juvenile Law
1152 (4th Edition 1996)].
Facts: A jury found appellant, Charles Ray Jones, guilty of aggravated robbery
and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. The jury assessed
punishment at ten years confinement for the aggravated robbery and five years
confinement for the burglary.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: In five points of error, appellant contends the jury should have
been permitted to consider community supervision, the evidence is legally and
factually insufficient to support his conviction, and the juvenile trial court's
order transferring jurisdiction is fatally defective.
In his fifth point of error, appellant asserts the district court did not have
jurisdiction over him because he was not properly certified as an adult.
Specifically, appellant alleges there is a discrepancy between the date of the
offenses as alleged in the indictments, December 19, 1997, and the date of the
offenses as set forth in the juvenile court's orders waiving jurisdiction,
December 23, 1997. As a result, appellant asserts the orders waiving
jurisdiction are fatally defective.
The requirements for a juvenile court's order waiving jurisdiction are set forth
in the Family Code:
If the juvenile court waives jurisdiction, it shall state specifically in the
order its reasons for waiver and certify its action, including the written order
and findings of the court, and shall transfer the person to the appropriate
court for criminal proceedings. On the transfer of the person for criminal
proceedings, the person shall be dealt with as an adult and in accordance with
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The transfer of custody is an arrest.
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. ß 54.02(h) (Vernon 1996). An order waiving jurisdiction is
valid even though it does not state the particular crime with which the juvenile
is charged. Cammon v. State, 672 S.W.2d 845, 851 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1984,
no pet.); see also Tatum v. State, 534 S.W.2d 678, 680 Tex.Crim.App.1976)
(holding that the order transferring jurisdiction was not void because it failed
to apprise the defendant of the specific crimes for which he might be charged in
the district court). Thus, the juvenile court's orders transferring jurisdiction
in the present case are not fatally defective.
[Editor's Comment: Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals' opinion does not make
it clear whether the criminal transaction that occurred on December 23, 1997
that was certified by the juvenile cort was a different transaction that the one
that occurred on December 19, 1997, as alleged in the indictment. If they were
different criminal transactions, then the District Court did not have
jurisdiction over the December 19, 1997 transaction because it was not
certified. However, if either the certification order or the indictment was
simply in error in reciting or alleging the date the offense was committed, and
the other facts recited or alleged make clear that both are addressing the same
criminal transaction, then the District Court did have jurisdiction.]