By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Texarkana court follows its own error in
Miller to deny appeal under CCP 4.18 (99-3-38)
On June 2, 1999, the Texarkana Court of Appeal refused to consider the
appeal of a juvenile claiming errors in the certification proceeding on the
erroneous ground that Article 4.18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure precludes
such review.
99-3-38. Rivas v. State, UNPUBLISHED, No. 06-98-00276-CR, 1999 WL 512037, 1999
Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.—Texarkana 6/2/99)[Texas Juvenile Law (4th Edition
1996)].
Facts: Osmin Rivas appeals from his certification as an adult and subsequent
conviction for the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. He
elected to have the court assess punishment, and was sentenced to twenty years'
imprisonment and a $1,000.00 fine. This case has two companion appeals involving
the same facts, and each raises an identical contention of error.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: Rivas contends that the order waiving juvenile court jurisdiction
is defective and that, because of the defect, the district court did not have
jurisdiction over the case. Specifically, he argues that the order of transfer
failed to transfer all proceedings against him to the adult criminal court.
Thus, under the authority of In re R.A.G., 866 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.1993), he
contends that, because the juvenile court failed to state on the record its
disposition of some of the charges against him, and since we cannot presume that
the lower court determined not to exercise its jurisdiction over these charges,
we must conclude that the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over all
offenses. The court made these holdings in R.A.G. under the authority of Section
56.01 of the Texas Family Code, which formerly permitted an appeal from a ruling
that waived jurisdiction under Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.02 (Vernon 1996).
The precise issue raised in this appeal has been recently decided by this Court
in Miller v. State, 981 S.W.2d 447, 448-49 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd).
In that opinion, we discussed the amendment of the Family Code and the current
application of Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 4.18 (Vernon Supp.1999). Under this
provision, a claim that a district court does not have jurisdiction because the
juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction must be made by a written motion in
bar of the prosecution timely filed in the district court. As in Miller, we
likewise conclude in this case that because the requirements of Article 4.18
were not met, Rivas has not preserved any complaint for appeal.
[Editor’s Comment: Miller was erroneously decided because it was based on an
incorrect interpretation of Article 4.18. In the 1999 Texas legislature, article
4.18 was amended to make it even clearer that it has no applicability to cases
in which a certification hearing was conducted by the juvenile court.]