By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Master did not adequately inform juvenile
of right to adjudication hearing before the judge [In re C.S.] (01-1-05).
On December 28, 2000, the Houston First District Court of Appeals reversed
an adjudication and commitment to the TYC because the juvenile law master did
not adequately inform the juvenile of his right to a hearing before the judge of
the juvenile court.
01-1-05. In the Matter of C.S., UNPUBLISHED, No. 01-99-01473-CV, 2000 WL
1877743, 2000 Tex.App.Lexis ____ (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 12/28/00) [Texas
Juvenile Law ... (5th Ed. 2000)].
Facts: C.S., a juvenile and the appellant here, was tried before a master of the
juvenile court, who made a finding that the appellant had engaged in delinquent
conduct. The master recommended the appellant be committed to the Texas Youth
Commission. The juvenile court judge signed a judgment to that effect.
On appeal, the appellant contends a master must comply with Texas Family Code
section 54.10, which requires a referee to inform juveniles that they are
entitled to a hearing before the juvenile court judge.
On May 4, 1999, C.S. was charged with misdemeanor assault for biting another
child. The trial court found C.S. engaged in delinquent conduct and assessed
punishment of probation for one year. He was placed at the Burnett Bayland
Reception Center (BBRC). [FN1] On August 31, 1999, C.S. was involved in an
altercation with another child at BBRC, namely, grabbing and choking him. The
State filed a motion to revoke probation. A hearing was conducted on the motion
to revoke, where Robert Molder was the master. He admonished C.S. that he had
"a right to have a hearing at this trial before the Court." C.S. made
no objection to the master proceeding, and did not sign a written waiver of the
right to have the trial before the juvenile judge. Master Molder found the
appellant had engaged in delinquent conduct and recommended the appellant be
committed to the Texas Youth Commission. The juvenile court judge signed a
judgment to that effect.
Held: Reversed and remanded.
Opinion Text: In Issue one, C.S. contends the master did not inform him of his
right to have the hearing before the juvenile court judge and did not obtain a
signed waiver from both C.S. and his attorney of the right to have the case
heard by the judge in accordance with Family Code section 54.10(a). In issue
two, C.S. asserts Pat Shelton, the judge of the 313th District Court of Harris
County, Texas, erred in approving the master's recommendation.
Issue one can be divided into two parts. One, was the information provided by
the master sufficient to apprise the appellant that he had a right to a hearing
before the juvenile court judge? Two, did the master comply with the provisions
of Texas Family Code section 54.10(a)(2)?
1. Notice of right to hearing The first part of issue one requires us to
determine if the master informed the appellant he had a right to a hearing
before the juvenile court judge. The notice of a right to a hearing before a
juvenile court judge applies to the statute both before and after the 1999
amendments. The master told C.S., "You have a right to have a hearing at
this trial before the court, but not before the jury." That was the only
information provided to C.S. concerning a hearing before a juvenile court judge.
This statement was not sufficient to inform the appellant he had a right to have
the hearing before the juvenile court judge. It does not inform C.S. that Robert
Molder was merely a master and not a juvenile court judge, or that he would make
findings and recommendations to the juvenile court judge. Section 54.10(a)(1)
specifically requires the juvenile be informed of his right to have his hearing
conducted before the "juvenile court judge," not the
"court." It is unclear as to what the master meant by the
"court." As far as C.S. was concerned, they were in the
"court" when the statement was made. It is clear from the record that
although C.S. was informed of his right to have the hearing before the
"court," he was not specifically informed, as required by Section
54.10(a)(1), of his right to have the hearing before the "juvenile court
judge." At a minimum, to comply with Section 54.10(a)(1), the master or
referee must inform the juvenile that (1) he is entitled to have a hearing
before the juvenile court judge, and (2) the referee or master is not a juvenile
court judge. We find the appellant was not informed of his right to have a
hearing before the juvenile court judge. We sustain part one of the appellant's
issue one and decline to address the remaining issues.
FN1. C.S. was removed from his home because he has no father of record and his mother is incarcerated.