By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Supplemental record shows respondent was
served with summons and original petition before adjudication [In re D.M.J.]
(00-4-08)
On September 28, 2000, the Houston
Fourteenth District Court of Appeals held that by supplemental record it was
shown that respondent was served with a summons and petition prior to his
adjudication hearing. Therefore, the juvenile court had jurisdiction over the
case and its subsequent revocation of probation was valid.
00-4-08. In the Matter of D.M.J., UNPUBLISHED, No. 14-99-00030-CV. 2000 WL
1421690, 2000 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 9/28/00)[Texas
Juvenile Law (5th Edition 2000)].
Facts: This is an appeal by a juvenile from an adjudication of delinquency.
Appellant raises two points of error alleging the adjudication must be reversed
because he was not served with a summons and/or original petition at or prior to
the adjudication hearing in violation of sections 53.06-53.07 of the Texas
Family Code and article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution.
Appellant was arrested in October of 1997 for suspicion of aggravated robbery in
connection with an August 24, 1997, car jacking. On October 22, 1997, appellant
was charged by original petition with the offense of aggravated robbery. On
January 28, 1998, appellant pled true to a reduced charge of robbery and was
adjudged to have engaged in delinquent conduct. Appellant was given probation
and "in-home" boot camp. On October 27, 1998, the State filed a motion
to revoke appellant's probation. On November 12, 1998, the juvenile court found
appellant had violated conditions of his probation. Accordingly, the juvenile
court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to confinement at the
Texas Youth Commission.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: As stated above, appellant alleges in his two points of error that
he was not personally served with a summons and the original petition before his
adjudication on January 28, 1998. Appellant argues that because he was not
personally served with a summons and a copy of the petition, all actions taken
by the juvenile court were void because the juvenile court never acquired
jurisdiction.
Texas law specifically provides that a juvenile court direct the issuance of a
summons to the child. See TEX. TEX. FAM.CODE ANN.CODE ANN. § 53.06(a)(1)
(Vernon 1996). Under Texas case law, notice is mandatory and the failure to
comply with the notice provisions outlined under the Texas Family Code deprives
the juvenile court of jurisdiction. See Alaniz v. State, 2 S.W.3d 451, 451 (Tex.App.-San
Antonio 1999, no pet.) (citing In the Matter of D.W.M., 562 S.W.2d 851, 852
(Tex.1978)); In the Matter of A.B., 938 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Tex.App.-Texarkana
1997, writ denied). Thus, we agree that if the State failed to serve appellant
with a summons and a copy of the petition, the juvenile court would not acquire
jurisdiction.
In this case, however, a supplemental clerk's record, filed approximately one
month after appellant's brief was filed, affirmatively establishes that
appellant was served with a summons and a copy of the petition. On page four of
the supplemental clerk's record appears a document containing an "Officer
or Authorized Person's Return." That return specifically states that
appellant was served, in person, with a summons and a copy of the original
petition on December 30, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. by Fort Bend County Deputy Constable
Angela Anders. Because the record affirmatively establishes service of a summons
and a copy of the original petition upon appellant, the juvenile court acquired
jurisdiction. Accordingly, we overrule points of error one and two and affirm
the trial court's judgment.