By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
State failed to prove identity of
complainant in adjudication hearing; judge changed respondent’s plea from not
true to true [In re B.D.] (00-4-25).
On November 14, 2000, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed an adjudication
of delinquency for aggravated robbery with a 20 year determinate sentence
because the State failed to prove the identity of the complainant. The sole
evidence in the case consisted of statements made by the respondent in an
inquiry from the trial judge following respondent’s entry of a plea of not
true.
¶ 00-4-25. In the Matter of B.D., UNPUBLISHED, No. 05-00-00670-CV, 2000 WL
1711766, 2000 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.—Dallas 11/14/00)[Texas Juvenile Law
(5th Edition 2000)].
Facts: Appellant, B.D., a juvenile, appeals an order adjudicating him a child
engaged in delinquent conduct and transferring him to the Texas Youth Commission
for a period of twenty years with a possible transfer to the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice--Institutional Division. In five points of error, appellant
contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his
adjudication and the trial court's deadly weapon finding.
The State filed a petition alleging appellant had committed delinquent conduct
by committing the offense of aggravated robbery. Specifically, the petition
alleged that "on or about the 7th day of November, 1999, in Dallas County,
Texas, [appellant] did while in the course of committing theft and with intent
to obtain or maintain control of the property of Israel Ramos, hereinafter
called the complainant, by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, to wit: a
firearm, intentionally or knowingly threaten or place the said complainant in
fear of imminent bodily injury or death ..." The grand jury approved the
petition and certified it to the juvenile
court. See Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 53.045(b) (Vernon Supp.2000). At the
adjudication hearing, appellant pleaded "not true" to the allegations
in the State's petition. The trial judge then questioned appellant:
[TRIAL JUDGE]: Not true. Tell me what you did.
[APPELLANT]: At the place, sir, I didn't have a firearm. I was with some other
people.
[TRIAL JUDGE]: Did you have a firearm or did [you] not?
[APPELLANT]: No, sir.
[TRIAL JUDGE]: You did not. Who had a firearm?
[APPELLANT]: My accomplice, sir.
[TRIAL JUDGE]: Who was that?
[APPELLANT]: [E.W.]
[TRIAL JUDGE]: What else happened?
[APPELLANT]: At the time, we explained to the guy and told him to give us all
his stuff. Then, another accomplice was with us and he had a firearm, too. He
pulled out the firearm and told him to give us his stuff and he put it on the
ground. I walked up--he told me to go get the stuff and I picked it up and
stepped back.
* * *
[TRIAL JUDGE]: You understand, if you
participated in the robbery by going and picking up the items on the ground,
then you're just as guilty as if you had the firearm. There may be an issue
about whether you did or did not have the firearm and that will make a
difference in your sentence, but you understand, if you were there and
participated, you're just as guilty as if you had the firearm. Understood?
[APPELLANT]: Yes, sir.
Held: Reversed and acquittal ordered.
Opinion Text: After hearing appellant's testimony, the trial judge sua sponte
entered a plea of true on appellant's behalf. The State did not present any
other evidence at the adjudication hearing. In his first point of error,
appellant contends the evidence is legally insufficient to support his
adjudication. He asserts he pleaded not true to the allegations in the State's
petition and complains the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
he committed the offense as alleged. We agree with appellant that he never
changed his plea from not true to true.
Although juvenile proceedings are considered civil in nature, the adjudication
of delinquency is based on the criminal standard of proof. See Tex.Fam.Code Ann.
§ 54.03(f) (Vernon Supp.2000). Thus, the prosecution is constitutionally and
statutorily required to prove the allegations in its petition beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.03(f) (Vernon Supp.2000); R.X.F.
v. State, 921 S.W.2d 888, 899 (Tex.App.--Waco 1996, no writ); see also C.D.F. v.
State, 852 S.W.2d 281, 284 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1993, no writ). In determining
whether the prosecution satisfied this burden, we review the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307,
319 (1979).
At the adjudication hearing, the only evidence presented was the discussion
between the trial judge and appellant regarding appellant's plea. Although the
State argues appellant's statements to the trial judge amount to a confession
and satisfy the State's burden, we disagree. The indictment alleged appellant
robbed Israel Ramon, however, no evidence was presented as to the identity of
the complaining witness. The name of the complaining witness must be alleged and
proved by the State at trial. Scott v. State, 905 S.W.2d 783, 785 (Tex.App.--Waco
1995), pet. ref'd, 915 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Abu Shabaam v. State, 848
S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993), vacated on other grounds,
856 S.W.2d 436 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); Gayton v. State, 732 S.W.2d 724, 724 (Tex.App.--Corpus
Christi 1987, pet. ref'd). In this case, the State wholly failed to prove the
identity of the complainant at the adjudication hearing. We sustain appellant's
first point of error. We reverse the trial court's judgment and dismiss this
case with prejudice. See Tex.R.App.P. 43.3; Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.03(g)
(Vernon Supp.2000).
[Editor’s Comment: Is this the most bizarre thing you have ever read, or
what? The respondent pleads not true, but the judge questions him about the
facts of the case anyway (see a problem there?) and then the judge—not the
respondent—changes the respondent’s plea from not true to true based on the
arraignment conversation. This other-worldly procedure makes the facts of In re
Gault look regular and proper by comparison!]