Giving juvenile admonishments the day before trial began sufficient (99-2-27)

On April 21, 1999, the San Antonio Court of Appeals held that giving the juvenile and his mother admonishments the day before trial began was sufficient, distinguishing cases in which admonishments had been given months before trial began.

99-2-27. In the Matter of A.M., UNPUBLISHED, No. 04-97-01034-CV, 1999 WL 238903, 1999 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.--San Antonio 4/21/99)[Texas Juvenile Law (4th Ed. 1996)].

Facts: A.M. was adjudicated delinquent for committing robbery involving bodily injury. In five points of error, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to properly admonish him and his mother and by admitting certain testimony.

Thirteen-year-old Israel Gonzalez testified that he sold newspaper subscriptions everyday after school. His employer, Robert Sadler, would drive him to a targeted location, where Gonzalez attempted to make sales by going door-to-door. On May 7, 1996, while Gonzalez was walking his route, an older boy tackled him to the ground, stole his watch, and ran away. Gonzalez later identified A.M. as the robber in a photo array. He also identified A.M. at trial.

Held: Affirmed.

Opinion Text: At the beginning of an adjudication hearing, the trial judge must explain to the juvenile and his parent or guardian the allegations against the juvenile, the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a trial and to confrontation of witnesses, the right to an attorney, the right to trial by a jury, and the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings, including the law relating to the admissibility of the record of a juvenile court adjudication in a criminal proceeding. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 54.03(b) (Vernon 1996).

In his first point of error, A.M. argues that the court failed to admonish him regarding the admissibility of his juvenile record in a criminal proceeding. This contention is belied by the record.

The court called this case for trial on October 21, 1997. After calling the case, the court provided A.M. all the information required by section 54.03(b). The court proceeded to entertain motions, including A.M.'s motion to suppress identification testimony, while waiting for the jury panel to arrive. Following the motions, the jury was selected. The proceedings resumed the next morning, October 22, 1997, with the formal reading of the petition, opening statements, and the presentation of evidence. The court did not repeat the admonishments at any time on October 22.

In arguing that he was not admonished, A.M. points only to the record from October 22, and ignores the admonishments provided to him when the case was called on the previous day. Because the record reflects that A.M. was properly admonished on October 21, we must reject A.M.'s argument that he was not admonished. If A.M. means to argue that the court erred by not repeating the admonishments on October 22, we reject that argument as well. It is apparent that the admonishments were given in reference to the trial that was about to commence; the court was not required to repeat the admonishments merely because it entertained motions after the admonishments were given and before the jury was selected. Cf. In re A.D.D., 974 S.W.2d 299, 305 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating that section 54.03(b) was not satisfied by admonishments given during a pretrial hearing four months before the trial); W.J.M.A. v. State, 602 S.W.2d 397, 400 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1980, no writ) (holding that section 54.03(b) was not satisfied by admonishments given during the juvenile's arraignment more than three months before the trial). We overrule the first point of error.

In his second point of error, A.M. argues that the trial court wholly failed to admonish his mother. This contention is also belied by the record.

It is clear from the record that A.M.'s mother was present when the admonishments were given on October 21. The court therefore complied with the statute. The court was not required to direct its comments to the mother or ask her whether she understood the nature of the proceedings and the allegations. See In re O.L., 834 S.W.2d 415, 420-21 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1992, no writ).

A.M. suggests that his mother may not have understood the admonishments because she speaks Spanish. There is nothing in the record to show that his mother did not understand. Immediately after calling the case, the court noted that an interpreter would be required for the mother. While giving the admonishments, the court asked the mother, "You are Lupe Mendoza, is that correct?" She replied, "Yes." The record does not reflect whether the interpreter was present during this exchange. But it is clear that the interpreter was present later that morning, because the court introduced him during introductory comments to the jury panel. Based on this record, we presume that the mother was capable of comprehending the admonishments, either because she understood some English or because the interpreter was present. See Rivera v. State, 981 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet. h.). We overrule the second point of error.