|
By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2007
Summaries
2006
Summaries
2005
Summaries
2004
Summaries 2003
Summaries 2002
Summaries 2001
Summaries 2000
Summaries 1999
Summaries
Error
to revoke misdemeanor probation when no adjudication prior to the probation
adjudication was shown [In re C.S.] (03-1-14).
On December 31, 2002, the Tyler Court of
Appeals held in an argument presented for the first time on appeal that the
juvenile court lacked authority to revoke misdemeanor probation when no
adjudication prior to the probation adjudication was shown.
The
affirmative finding punishment scheme for group bias is not facially
unconstitutional [In re M.P.] (03-1-13).
On December 31, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the provision in the Penal Code enhancing punishment upon an
affirmative finding of group bias in selecting the victim is not facially
unconstitutional.
Evidence
sufficient to support aggravated assault with a golf club by a juvenile on his
probation officer [In re R.M.] (03-1-12).
On December 19, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient for aggravated assault when the
juvenile threatened his probation officer with a golf club during a home
visit.
Evidence
was sufficient to support finding that juvenile operated a motor vehicle without
its owner's consent [In re A.L.R.] (03-1-11).
On December 19, 2002, the Austin Court of
Appeals held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that respondent
was operating a motor vehicle to support an adjudication for unauthorized use.
No
evidence of extrensic fraud in bill of review proceedings when complainant
recanted her testimony [In re M.P.A.] (03-1-10).
On December 19, 2002, the Austin Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile petitioner had not made a claim for relief in
bill of review proceedings since there was no evidence of prosecutorial
involvement in any false testimony presented by the complainant in the
underlying juvenile proceedings.
Not
ineffective assistance for defense counsel to prevent diagnostic examination in
certification proceedings [Montgomery v. State] (03-1-09).
On December 12, 2002, the Amarillo Court of
Appeals held that it was not ineffective assistance of counsel for the
juvenile's lawyer to prevent his client from being subjected to a
psychological and psychiatric examination as part of the certification
process.
Code
of Criminal Procedure article 37.07 provision limiting prior offenses to
post-1995 offenses does not apply to adult adjudications [Brooks v. State]
(03-1-08).
On December 12, 2002, the Tyler Court of
Appeals held that the provision limiting misdemeanor adjudications to those
after 1995 applies only to juvenile adjudications, not to adult convictions.
Prior
history of offenses and on probation justified commitment to TYC [In re N.A.P.]
(03-1-07).
On December 11, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile's prior offenses and history of probation
violations justified the juvenile court's commitment to the TYC.
Evidence
is factually sufficient to support aggravated assault as a probation violation
[In re C.S.H.] (03-1-06).
On December 10, 2002, the Texarkana Court of
Appeals held that evidence was factually sufficient to support an finding of
aggravated assault by breaking an arm as a violation of probation.
Error
in date of prior conviction allegation in criminal case does not convert adult
conviction into juvenile adjudication [Houston v. State] (03-1-05).
On December 10, 2002, the Dallas Court of
Appeals held that a mistaken date allegation does not convert an adult
conviction allegation into an juvenile delinquency allegation. Defendant
pleaded true to the allegation so cannot challenge sufficiency of the proof.
The
State has no right to appeal from dismissal of a juvenile case resulting from a
pre-trial suppression order [In the Matter of S.N.] (03-1-04).
On December 5, 2002, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals held that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not give the
State the right to appeal in juvenile cases.
Transfer
to TDCJ under determinate sentence act in hearing with mental health testimony
upheld on remand from court of appeals [In re R.D.B.] (03-1-03).
On December 5, 2002, the Beaumont Court of
Appeals agreed with counsel that the appeal from a transfer to TDCJ was
frivolous. The case had initially been remanded by the court of appeals on the
ground that counsel was ineffective in not obtaining the services of a mental
health expert to testify at the release or transfer hearing. This time an
expert testified and the juvenile court still transferred the juvenile.
Interpreter
not required for parent of juvenile charged in justice or municipal court
[JC-0584] (03-1-02).
On November 26, 2002, the Texas Attorney
General opined that Chapter 57 of the Government Code does not require the
appointment of an interpreter for the parent of a juvenile charged with a
criminal offense in a justice or municipal court.
Arson
of school proved by juvenile setting fire to toilet paper and dispenser [In re
C.S.B.] (03-1-01).
On December 5, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals upheld an adjudication of arson of a school upon
proof that the juvenile set toilet paper and a dispenser on fire.
Threat
to stomp juvenile probation officer's ass was criminal retaliation for official
actions [Spears v. State] (02-4-23).
On November 20, 2002, the Tyler Court of
Appeals held that a threat made in a meeting by the father of a juvenile
respondent to stomp the ass of the juvenile probation officer assigned to his
son's case was criminal retaliation. The motive for the threat was official,
not exclusively personal.
Evidence
sufficient to support charge of unauthorized use of motor vehicle and of leaving
the scene of an accident [In re W.T.O.] (02-4-22).
On November 21, 2002, the Austin Court of
Appeals held that the respondent's statement to police was sufficient to
support his adjudication for the authorized use of his father's motor vehicle
and for leaving the scene of an accident with an unattended vehicle.
Appeal
of bargained conviction on pre-trial juvenile motion not permitted because
motion not ruled upon [Christentary v. State] (02-4-21).
On November 19, 2002, the Amarillo Court of
Appeals dismissed an appeal from a plea bargained conviction taken on a
pre-trial juvenile suppression motion because there was no showing the
juvenile court ruled on the motion.
Court
of Appeals abates appeal to allow juvenile court to determine its status and
whether the juvenile needs representation [In re Posadas] (02-4-20).
On November 15, 2002, the Amarillo court of
Appeals abated an appeal on which no action had been taken since receipt of
the record to allow the juvenile court to determine whether the appeal has
been abandoned and if not what needs to be done to move it along.
San
Antonio Court of Appeals requires three misdemeanor adjudications to authorize a
TYC commitment on misdemeanor probation revocation [In re S.B.] (02-4-19).
On November 6, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals joined the Beaumont, Fort Worth and Austin Courts of Appeal in holding
that to revoke misdemeanor probation and commit a child to the TYC the State
must prove three separate misdemeanor adjudications and that a probation
violation cannot count as one of them.
Evidence
was sufficient that juvenile possessed 100 pounds of marijuana under the back
seat of a car where he was seated [In re B.D.G.] (02-4-18).
On October 31, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's
finding that the respondent was in possession of 100 pounds of marijuana that
was stuffed under the back seat where he was seated.
Evidence
was factually and legally sufficient to support home removal findings in
modification and TYC commitment [In re W.J.W.] (02-4-17).
On October 31, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's
finding that adequate efforts had been made to prevent the need for removal of
the respondent from his home.
Three
hour delay before transporting detained juvenile to station OK because he was
not in custody until transported [Dang v. State] (02-4-16).
On October 31, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that a delay of almost three hours during which
the juvenile was detained in a police car before being transported to a
juvenile processing office was not unnecessary because the juvenile was not in
custody until transported.
Juvenile
court judge who was elected prosecutor when juvenile was prosecuted is
disqualified to sit on habeas case [In re K.E.M.] (02-4-15).
On October 24, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court
of Appeals held that a juvenile court judge who was the elected county
attorney when the juvenile habeas applicant was prosecuted is disqualified to
judge the habeas claim. The judge as prosecutor had no involvement in the
juvenile's prosecution other than as head of the office.
Intermediate
Care Facility may be civilly liable for murder by violent retarded juvenile in
its care [Texas Home Management v. Peavy] (02-4-14).
On October 31, 2002, the Texas Supreme Court
held that an Intermediate Care Facility in which MHMR had placed a juvenile
might be liable for a murder committed by that juvenile while home on
furlough.
Evidence
was sufficient for aggravated assault adjudication by chocking in act of playing
"passout" [In re J.A.P.] (02-4-13).
On October 17, 2002, the Austin Court of
Appeals upheld an adjudication for aggravated assault by recklessly causing
serious bodily injury by chocking the victim in a game of "passout"
on a school playground.
Juvenile's
father lacks standing to appeal a plea bargained disposition; home removal
findings supported by record [In re A.E.E.] (02-4-12).
On October 17, 2002, the Texarkana Court of
Appeals held that a father lacks standing to appeal from a plea bargained
disposition of his daughter's case. The court also held that the home removal
findings were supported by the record and that the court's statement of
reasons for disposition, supplied on abatement, were adequate.
Police
officer talking to juvenile was voluntary encounter, not stop, and search that
uncovered crack was consensual [In re D.G.] (02-4-11).
On October 10, 2002, the Austin Court of
Appeals held that an officer, acting on an unverified tip from an un-tested
informant who confronted a juvenile suspected of dealing in crack cocaine did
not stop the juvenile but engaged in a voluntary encounter with him and that a
subsequent search was with the juvenile's consent.
Criminal
defendant has no discovery right to juvenile records of state's witnesses
without showing that the records exist [Dixon v. State] (02-4-10).
On October 3, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that the defendant in a criminal case of sexual abuse against minors has
no discovery right to the juvenile records of the State's complaining
witnesses in the absence of evidence that any of them had records.
El
Paso Court applies objection because of age statute as a waiver of in personam
jurisdiction over the juvenile [In re E.D.C.] (02-4-09).
On October 3, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that section 51.042 of the Family Code provides for a waiver of
in personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction, and upheld the
validity of the statute on that basis.
Search
by police officer of pocket of baggy trousers worn on school campus was lawful
without probable cause or a warrant [Russell v. State] (02-4-08).
On April 10, 2002, the Waco Court of Appeals
held that a law enforcement officer could search the pocket of baggy trousers
for a weapon or contraband on school campus when the student refuses to empty
the pocket at the request of school officials.
Parental
notification one and one-half hours after taking into custody prompt when prior
efforts failed [In re L.B.J.] (02-4-07).
On September 26, 2002, the Beaumont Court of
Appeals held that notification given to the father concerning taking the
juvenile into custody one and one-half hours after arrest is prompt when
officer made six unsuccessful prior attempts to notify the juvenile's mother.
Requiring
parental notice of reason for taking into custody doesn't require notice of
interrogation purpose [Hampton v. State] (02-4-06).
On September 25, 2002, the Court of Criminal
Appeals held that telling a juvenile's mother that he was being arrested on a
directive to apprehend for probation absconding complied with statutory notice
requirement. Officer was not then or later required to notify parent that child
might be questioned about murder.
Failure
to object to judicial admonition deficiencies at adjudication hearing waives
claim on appeal [In re R.J.C.] (02-4-05).
On September 11, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that failure of the defendant to make a timely objection as
required by a 1997 amendment to the Family Code to the juvenile court's
admonition deficiencies waives the claim on appeal.
Statute
requiring pre-trial objection in criminal court for failure to certify from
juvenile court is constitutional [Rushing v. State] (02-4-04).
On September 11, 2002, the Court of Criminal
Appeals held that Code of Criminal Procedure article 4.18, which requires a
pre-trial objection to failure of the juvenile court to certify a juvenile
case to criminal court, does not violate the prohibition on separation of
powers.
Factual
basis in proceedings before associate judge for $12,900 restitution order
against parent in burglary case [In re B.B.] (02-4-03).
On September 4, 2002, the Dallas Court of
Appeals upheld an order of restitution against a parent for $12,900 for
property damage and loss in a burglary case. There was a factual basis for the
order based on the respondent's participation in the offense.
Harmful
error to allege and prove for enhancement a juvenile adjudication and commitment
for a pre-1996 offense [Sims v. State] (02-4-02).
On August 20, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that a juvenile adjudication for an offense that was committed before
1996 cannot under Family Code Section 51.13(d) be used to enhance punishment
in criminal proceedings.
Private
journal properly seized and read as a valid school search [Goldberg v. State]
(02-4-01).
On August 22, 2002, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals held that campus police lawfully seized and read a private
journal kept by the defendant. It was seized as a valid school search.
Evidence
supports adjudication and twenty year sentence for recklessly killing a ten year
old child [In re J.D.P.] (02-3-36).
On August 22, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals upheld a jury adjudication and disposition in a case in which the
respondent recklessly killed a companion with a handgun.
Juvenile
court abused its discretion in finding unavailability of child witness but
admission of taped testimony was harmless [In re C.Y.] (02-3-35).
On August 15, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court did not make the
constitutionally-required finding of unavailability to authorize admission of
tape of interview. However, in view of the respondent's admission into
evidence of a similar, later tape, the error was harmless.
Retaliation
petition that tracks statutes ok; evidence sufficient for retaliation
adjudication [In re B.P.H.] (02-3-34).
On August 15, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals upheld an adjudication for retaliation and related offenses based on
threats made by respondent to fellow students at his middle school when he
allegedly was planning a "Columbine style" attack on teachers and
students.
El
Paso Court says removal from home findings required to modify probation by
placing the child outside his home [In re S.R.R.] (02-3-33).
On August 15, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that the removal from home findings required by Section 54.04
apply to modification of disposition to place a child outside his or her home.
Evidence
was sufficient to uphold an adjudication for aggravated sexual assault by
contact committed by a 10 year old [In re R.R.] (02-3-32).
On August 14, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that a 10 year old is capable of forming the intent or knowledge
necessary to commit the offense of aggravated sexual assault by contact.
Junk
car owner not qualified to testify as expert as to amount of damage to windows;
evidence insufficient as to amount of loss [In re I.R.H.] (02-3-31).
On August 8, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that the owner of junk cars was not qualified as an expert to testify as
to the loss sustained when windows were broken. It also held that the evidence
was insufficient to prove loss of more than $1500 and less than $20,000.
Assault
on public servant adjudications upheld for contact with classroom teacher and
aide [In re J.L.O.] (02-3-30).
On August 8, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals
upheld assault on public servant adjudications for contact with a classroom
teacher and aide. The respondent knew both were district employees, which is
sufficient. It is not also necessary that he know the legal proposition that
school district employees are public servants.
Attorney
General says that a parent has a right to see school counseling recording on his
or her child [JC-0538] (02-3-29).
On August 7, 2002, the Texas Attorney General
said that under federal and state law a parent has a right to see school
counseling records on his or her child, subject to a very narrow exception.
No
discretion abuse in transferring youth to TDCJ who was already incarcerated
there on capital murder offense [In re T.W.] (02-3-28).
On August 8, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring
respondent to TDCJ. He was already confined there on a capital murder charge
and had accumulated numerous disciplinary infractions in TYC and TDCJ.
Evidence
sufficient to support adjudication for graffiti writing with indelible
instrument [In re A.F.] (02-2-27).
On August 1, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that evidence was sufficient to support an adjudication for graffiti
writing with an indelible instrument even though the instrument was not
introduced into evidence.
Error,
but harmless, to admit a delinquency adjudication at the penalty phase of a
criminal trial when the State did not provide notice requested by the defense
[Johnson v. State] (02-3-26).
On August 1, 2002, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals held that the State did not respond to defendant's request
for notice with respect to a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication and
therefore that the trial court erred in permitting the adjudication to be
received into evidence at the penalty phase of a criminal prosecution.
However, considering the punishment assessed, the error was harmless.
Removal
from home findings not required for probation revocation [In re M.M.] (02-3-25).
On July 31, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the removal from home findings required for disposition by
section 54.04(i) do not apply to modification of disposition and revocation of
probation. It also held that revocation for leaving the county without
permission is ok.
Evidence
is factually sufficient to support boot camp probation in school burglary case
[In re J.C.C.] (02-3-24).
On July 25, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court of
Appeals held that evidence of a school burglary was sufficient to support the
juvenile court's order placing respondent in a long term boot camp.
Removal
from home findings not required for modification of disposition [In re A.V.]
(02-3-23).
On July 24, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the removal from home findings required in disposition
proceedings is not required in modification proceedings.
Capital
murder certification approved, but no probable cause for certification of
burglary charges [In re M.A.V.] (02-3-22).
On July 24, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals upheld the certification of a juvenile for seven counts of capital
murder, while reversing and rendering for insufficiency of probable cause for
several burglary charges. This was the fourth attempt to certify this
respondent for these offenses.
Error
to admit school report of anger event in aggravated assault trial, but harmless
in light of other evidence of history of anger [In re L.R.] (02-3-21).
On July 11, 2002, the First District Court of
Appeals held that while it was error under Rule 404(b) to admit a school
report of an anger event, it was harmless in view of the other evidence of
respondent's anger.
Failure
to disclose pending charges against juvenile state's witness not a violation of
due process [Lora v. State] (02-3-20).
On July 11, 2002, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals held that it was not a violation of due process for the State
not to disclose that one of its witnesses has pending juvenile charges. The
evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
Notice
of arrest can be given to adult cousin as custodian; two and one-half hour delay
in giving notice ok [Vann v. State] (02-3-19).
On June 27, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that notice of arrest can be given to an adult
cousin of the juvenile since she was an adult with whom he lived; the court
also held that a two and one-half hour delay in providing that notice did not
make a confession inadmissible.
Unadjudicated
juvenile offenses are admissible at the penalty phase of a criminal trial [Strasser
v. State] (02-3-18).
On June 27, 2002, the Eastland Court of Appeals
held that under article 37.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unadjudicated
juvenile offenses are admissible at the penalty phase of a criminal trial. The
authorization in that same article that juvenile felony or jailable
misdemeanor adjudications are admissible does not preclude the admissibility
unadjudicated juvenile offenses.
No
abuse of discretion in revocation of 13-year-old's probation for repeated
burglaries [In re R.R.G.] (02-3-17).
On June 27, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
upheld the juvenile court's revocation of probation of a 13-year-old for
repeated burglaries. It did so by applying, under its district precedent, the
factors in Section 54.04 relating to removal from home.
Court
of Appeals dismissed pre-trial appeal for lack of jurisdiction [In re D.B.]
(02-3-16).
On June 26, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
dismissed an attempt by the juvenile to appeal directly from denial of a
motion to suppress without waiting for adjudication. There is no authority to
appeal under that circumstance without agreement of all the parties, which was
not present here.
Court
of Criminal Appeals remands question of admissibility of statement taken
out-of-state to Court of Appeals [Vega v. State] (02-3-15).
On June 26, 2002, the Court of Criminal Appeals
considered the question of the admissibility of a statement given by
respondent to the Chicago Police Department that complied with Illinois law
but not with Texas law. The court decided that the Court of Appeals should
first address the question under Texas law as to the admissibility of such a
statement.
Supplemented
record shows petition and summons were personally served on respondent [In re
L.A.C., Jr.] (02-2-14).
On June 20, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that a return of service in a supplemented record created a presumption
not rebutted that the respondent was personally served with petition and
summons.
Appeal
from modification dismissed as moot when respondent discharged from probation
upon becoming 18 years old [In re N.N.D.W.] (02-3-13).
On June 20, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that an appeal from a modification but not revocation of probation was
mooted when the juvenile was discharged from probation upon her 18th birthday.
Defendant
in criminal trial cannot cross-examine witness about being on juvenile probation
without proof he is on probation [Ordaz v. State] (02-3-12).
On June 20, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that a criminal defendant was properly precluded from cross-examining a
State's witness about being on juvenile probation to show bias in favor of the
State without proof that the witness was in fact on juvenile probation.
Evidence
supports order requiring parents to pay restitution to victim of child's
burglary [In re B.B.] (02-3-11).
On June 20, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that the juvenile court had a factual basis in the evidence for its order
that the parents pay the victim of their child's burglary $12,900 in
restitution for damages caused during the offense.
Respondent's
failure to participate in sex offender treatment justified probation revocation
[In re C.C.] (02-3-10).
On June 20, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
upheld revocation of probation and commitment to the TYC for failure of the
respondent to participate in a sex offender treatment program. Respondent
refused to participate after his father angrily departed a family therapy
session.
Juvenile
court did not abuse its discretion in transferring child to TDCJ [In re B.R.]
(02-3-09).
On June 12, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
transferring under the determinate sentence act a juvenile from TYC to TDCJ.
TYC
commitment OK when placements rejected respondent because of his sexual
orientation [In re C.J.H.] (02-3-08).
On June 13, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals upheld a TYC commitment based on part on refusal of several placements
to accept respondent because of concerns over his safety due to his sexual
orientation.
Respondent's
probation history supports TYC commitment [In re K.R.] (02-3-07).
On June 12, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile history on probation was factual sufficiency
for its decision to commit the respondent to the TYC.
Written
confession not proved to be a product of an earlier, inadmissible oral statement
[Horton v. State] (02-3-06).
On May 31, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that the respondent failed to prove that his written statement was a
product of his earlier, inadmissible oral statement. The Court of Appeals also
held that failure to bring the respondent promptly to a juvenile processing
office requires statement exclusion only upon a showing of a causal connection
between the two events.
Failure
to object to lack of proof of age waives claim for appeal [In re J.S.]
(02-3-05).
On May 30, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that the respondent did not preserve for appeal the absence of proof by
the State of his age because he failed to object in a timely fashion in the
trial court.
Certification
investigation was complete and evidence was sufficient for transfer to criminal
court [Price v. State] (03-3-04).
On May 30, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that the certification investigation complied with the statutory
requirement of completeness and that the evidence was sufficient to support
transfer to criminal court; however, the Court of Appeals ordered credit on
the prison sentence for time spent in juvenile detention.
Evidence
supports respondent's guilty as party; criminal requirements for continuance
motion applied [In re C.G.] (02-3-03).
On May 30, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
upheld the respondent's adjudication as a party to robbery; it also held that
under criminal procedure rules a motion for continuance must be in writing to
preserve error.
Texas
Supreme Court says oral correction of unlawful written statement is admissible
in evidence [In re R.J.H.] (02-3-02).
On May 30, 2002, the Texas Supreme Court held
that when the respondent telephoned the investigating officer to correct
comments he had made in a written statement that had been taken in violation
of the Family Code, the oral statements were admissible in evidence because he
was not in custody and he was not coerced into making them.
Error
for juvenile court to charge jury on definition of reasonable doubt, but
harmless; evidence sufficient for terroristic threat in school adjudication [In
re C.S.] (02-3-01).
On May 24, 2002, the Texarkana Court of Appeals
held that it was error for the juvenile court to give the jury the definition
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that was previously required by Geesa v.
State, but that because the instruction favors the defense, giving it was
harmless error.
Removal
from home findings supported by evidence [In re R.E.A.] (02-2-23).
On May 16, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court's removal from home findings supporting
placement in a book camp as a condition of probation was supported by the
evidence.
Testimony
about juvenile probation admissible at penalty phase of criminal trial [Horn v.
State] (02-2-22).
On May 15, 2002, the Beaumont Court of Appeals
held that the trial court properly admitted at the penalty phase of a criminal
trial the testimony of a juvenile probation officer about the defendant's
juvenile probation.
Offense
of disrupting school activity requires proof of intent to disrupt [JC-0504]
(02-2-21).
On May 15, 2002, the Attorney General stated
that the offense of disrupting school activity requires proof that the student
or other person intended by his or her conduct to disrupt in the manner
defined by law. It is not sufficient that the person intended to engage in
conduct that in fact had the consequence of disrupting a school activity.
Evidence
supports juvenile court's removal from home findings in modification of
disposition proceedings [In re. V.J.-C.] (02-2-20).
On May 15, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that under its ruling in In the Matter of L.R. there was sufficient
evidence to support the juvenile court's modification of disposition removal
from home findings.
Revocation
of probation for technical violations only upheld [In re J.L.S.] (02-2-19).
On May 8, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that revocation of probation and commitment to the Texas Youth
Commission was justified for technical violations of failure to report and
failure fully to perform required community service hours.
Volunteered,
non-custodial statement given at crime scene was admissible [In re R.G.]
(02-2-18).
On May 8, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a confession to marijuana use made by the juvenile
respondent on the street was admissible because it was non-custodial and
voluntary.
Statement
to mother by child victim of sex offense admissible in adjudication proceedings
as excited utterance [In re E.S.] (02-2-17).
On May 2, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
upheld the admission into an adjudication hearing of a mother's testimony as
to statements made by her son concerning a sex offense committed against him
on the grounds of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
Court
of Criminal Appeals vacates confession decision [State v. Simpson] (02-2-16).
On April 24, 2002, the Court of Criminal
Appeals vacated a parental notification confession case for reconsideration by
the Court of Appeals in light of Gonzales v. State.
Juvenile
court did not err in certifying respondent for trial in criminal court [Price v.
State] (02-2-15).
On April 24, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that the juvenile court did not err in certifying the respondent for
trial in criminal court and that defense counsel did not render ineffective
assistance at the certification hearing.
Attorney
General approves of school's policy on physical restraint of students [JC-0-491]
(02-2-14).
On April 15, 2002, the Texas Attorney General
opined that the policy of the Arlington Independent School District regarding
the physical restraint of students was lawful under Texas law.
Due
process violated when juvenile court revoked probation for the same offense for
which the probation term had earlier been extended [In re J.L.D.] (02-2-13).
On April 18, 2002, the Texarkana Court of
Appeals held that due process was violated when the juvenile court revoked
probation for the same probation violation that had been considered in earlier
proceedings and had resulted in an extension of the probation term.
Failure
to report allegation in motion to modify sufficient; hearsay objection to drug
test result made too late [In re C.O.] (02-2-12).
On April 17, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals upheld a probation revocation against a challenge that the motion to
modify did not contain sufficient notice of the failure to report violation it
alleged and that the probation officer should not have been permitted over a
hearsay objection to testify as to the result of a drug test.
Statement
was excluded because questioning by police officer in school was custodial and
no warning of rights was given [In re D.A.R.] (02-2-11).
On April 4, 2002, the El Paso Court of Appeals
held that a juvenile's statement that led to recovery of a handgun was
inadmissible in evidence because the juvenile was in police custody at school
and had not been given his Miranda warnings.
Court
of Criminal Appeals vacates and remands a confession/parental notification case
to the Court of Appeals [Pham v. State] (02-2-10).
On April 10, 2002, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals a case in which it had
held that a confession should have been excluded from evidence for failure of
the police to notify parents their child had been taken into custody. It did
so in light of Gonzales v. State, in which it had held that a causal
connection between the failure to notify and the obtaining of the confession
must be shown.
Admitting
testimony about recovery of stolen property was harmless error (on remand from
Court of Criminal Appeals) [Roquemore v. State] (02-2-09).
On March 28, 2002, the Houston First District
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a certified juvenile, finding that
the erroneous admission of testimony that he led officers to stolen property
was harmless in light of his own testimony.
Personally
notifying parent justified one hour delay in bring child to juvenile processing
office [Coffey v. State] (02-2-08).
On March 21, 2002, the Austin Court of Appeals
held that a one hour delay in bringing a child taken into custody to the
juvenile processing office was justified by personally notifying the child's
mother of the arrest.
Not
error to admit evidence of theft by respondent at fitness to proceed hearing [In
re M.A.S.] (02-2-07).
On March 20, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court judge did not err in admitting testimony
at the fitness to stand trial hearing of evidence that the juvenile committed
a theft.
Failure
to object or file motion for new trial waives claim on appeal that judge was
biased in modification proceedings [Tatum v. State] (02-2-06).
On March 11, 2002, the Tyler Court of Appeals
held that the juvenile respondent had by failure to object or file a motion
for new trial waived a claim that the juvenile court judge by his remarks
demonstrated bias against the juvenile in disposition modification
proceedings.
Defense
attorney cannot appeal adjudication of direct contempt; must use habeas [White
v. State] (02-2-05).
On March 7, 2002, the Fourteenth Court of
Appeals held that a juvenile's attorney, who was held in direct contempt of
court for her conduct during a detention hearing, cannot challenge that ruling
by appeal but must instead use habeas corpus.
Requirement
of disclosure of written matter at modification hearing applies only to second
phase of the hearing [In re D.S.S.] (02-2-04).
On March 6, 2002, the Waco Court of Appeals
held that the requirement of disclosure of written matter in Section 54.05
applies only to the second or "penalty" phase of the modification
hearing.
Not
a violation of double jeopardy for district court to revoke probation when
associate judge has recommended probation continuation [In re D.G.] (02-2-03).
On March 5, 2002, the Dallas Court of Appeals
held that a district court judge can without violating double jeopardy
principles reject the recommendation of an associate judge that the respondent
be continued on probation and instead revoke probation and commit the child to
the TYC. The associate judge proposes and the district court judge disposes.
Three
misdemeanor adjudications required for TYC commitment on modification [In re A.I.]
(02-2-20).
On February 28, 2002, the Austin Court of
Appeals joined the Beaumont and Fort Worth Courts of Appeal in holding that
three misdemeanor adjudications are required to authorize commitment to TYC as
a modification of misdemeanor probation.
No
abuse of discretion in committing suicidal respondent to TYC on modification of
probation [In re J.H.] (02-2-01).
On February 20, 2002, the Tyler Court of
Appeals upheld a modification and commitment to TYC of a respondent who had
severe emotional problems and who had attempted suicide. Commitment was
justified because local resources had been exhausted.
No
abuse of discretion in probation revocation and TYC commitment [In re J.H.]
(02-1-30).
On February 20, 2002, the Tyler Court of
Appeals held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
probation and committing respondent to the TYC based on his admission of three
probation violations.
Criminal
defendant must comply with special appeal notice rule to challenge certification
in appeal from plea-bargained sentence [Woods v. State] (02-1-29).
On February 20, 2002, the Court of Criminal
Appeals held that a criminal defendant who wishes to challenge a juvenile
court certification in a criminal appeal must comply with the plea bargaining
notice of appeal requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to do so.
Evidence
was sufficient to support fitness finding and certification to criminal court
for capital murder [Jimenez v. State] (02-1-28).
On February 14, 2002, the Corpus Christi Court
of Appeal, in an appeal from a conviction for capital murder, upheld the
juvenile court jury's finding that defendant was fit to proceed to
certification hearing. The Court of Appeals also upheld the juvenile court's
decision to certify defendant to criminal court for prosecution as an adult.
OK
for prosecutor at penalty phase of criminal proceedings to question defendant's
mother about the details of a juvenile offense [Romo v. State] (02-1-27).
On February 14, 2000, the Houston Fourteenth
District Court of Appeals held that the criminal court judge did not err in
permitting the prosecutor at penalty to question the defendant's mother about
the details of an aggravated robbery for which her son had received probation
as a juvenile.
Failure
to notify parents of arrest doesn't require exclusion of confession absent proof
of a causal connection [Gonzales v. State] (02-1-26).
On February 13, 2002, the Court of Criminal
Appeals held that article 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not
permit exclusion of a custodial confession by a juvenile for failing to notify
parents of the arrest absent some causal connection between the failure to
notify and the confession.
Attorney
General explains relationship of county and school district to JJAEP [JC-0459]
(02-1-25).
On February 8, 2002, the Attorney General
answered several questions about the powers and duties of counties and
independent school districts toward juvenile justice alternative education
programs.
Three
adjudications required for revocation of misdemeanor probation [In re N.P.]
(02-1-24).
On January 31, 2002, the Fort Worth Court of
Appeals held that three separate adjudications are required to authorize a
juvenile court to revoke misdemeanor probation.
Insufficient
evidence that pointing BB gun at officer was deadly conduct [In re M.C.]
(02-1-23).
On February 7, 2002, the Austin Court of
Appeals held that there was no evidence that a BB gun was capable of causing
serious bodily injury when there was no evidence the gun was loaded or even
capable of being fired.
Juvenile
was not in custody when he confessed to arson [In re R.M.F.] (02-1-22).
On February 6, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that a juvenile voluntarily accompanied an arson investigator to
his office and was not in custody when he gave a written statement confessing
to arson.
Evidence
was sufficient to show respondent aided murder by providing weapons and
disposing of body [In re K.C.A.] (02-1-21).
On February 1, 2002, the Dallas Court of
Appeals upheld an adjudication and determinate sentence for murder on evidence
that while the respondent did not personally commit the offense he did provide
weapons with which it was committed and did assist in disposing of the body.
Statement
not in indictment of intent to enhance penalty with juvenile felony adjudication
is sufficient notice in criminal proceedings [Parker v. State] (02-1-20).
On January 30, 2002, the San Antonio Court of
Appeals held that written notice by the State in advance of trial of intent to
use a juvenile felony adjudication and commitment to enhance punishment for
second degree felony to that of a first degree felony was sufficient notice.
That notice is customarily, but not necessarily, contained in an enhancement
paragraph in an indictment.
Attorney
General says that justice court cannot order three days' detention in juvenile
facility for contempt of court [JC-0454] (02-1-19).
On January 28, 2002, the Attorney General
opined that a justice court lacks the authority to refer a contempt of court
case to the juvenile court with an order that the juvenile facility confine
the child for a period of time. A referral is subject to juvenile court
release/detention decisions, as is any other delinquency referral.
Probable
cause shown for murder arrest; after initial refusal, juvenile's decision to
give a statement to police was voluntary [In re M.M.J.M.] (02-1-18)
On January 25, 2002, the El Paso Court of
Appeals held that although the juvenile initially refused to give a statement
to police in a murder investigation his change of mind was voluntary so the
resulting statement was admissible.
Certified
juvenile entitled to credit on prison sentence for time spent in juvenile
detention before transfer [Delgado v. State] (02-1-17).
On January 10, 2002, the Houston Fourteenth District Court
of Appeals held that a certified juvenile is entitled to credit on his prison
sentence for time he spent in juvenile detention before certification to
criminal court.
Admitting
in criminal trial juvenile probation officer's opinion about defendant's state
of mind at time of offense was harmless error, if error [Brockman v. State]
(02-1-16).
On January 10, 2002, the Dallas
Court of Appeals held that a criminal court judge's ruling permitting a
juvenile probation officer to testify that the defendant had not suffered from
a psychotic break when he stabbed the victim to death was harmless error if it
was error at all.
The
certification study was not deficient; it was incomplete because the juvenile
refused to cooperate with the psychologist [Ortega v. State] (02-1-15).
On January 7, 2002, the Dallas
Court of Appeals held that a certification study was not fatally incomplete
because the missing information could have come only from the respondent and
his family who, on advice of counsel, refused to cooperate with the
psychologist.
|
