By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law

2003 Case Summaries     2002 Case Summaries     2001 Case Summaries     2000 Case Summaries     1999 Case Summaries

Juvenile court lost jurisdiction to revoke probation when respondent became 18 [In re A.B.] (04-1-05).

On December 5, 2003, the Houston First District Court of Appeals held that under the Texas Supreme Court's opinion in N.J.A. the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over the State's motion to modify disposition when the respondent became 18 before probation was revoked.

04-1-05. In the Matter of A.B., UNPUBLISHED, No. 01-03-00700-CV, 2003 WL 22909318, 2003 Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 12/5/03) Texas Juvenile Law (5th Ed. 2000).

Facts: Appellant and the opposing party, the State of Texas, have filed an agreed motion to expedite the appeal, which we granted on November 5, 2003. We now suspend Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 39.9, the appellate rule requiring 21 days notice to the parties before submission of the case to the Court, and consider the appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 2 ("on its own initiative an appellate court may to expedite a decision or for other good cause suspend a rule's operation in a particular case and order a different procedure....").

Held: Vacated and dismissed.

Opinion Text: This is an appeal of an order modifying disposition and committing appellant to the Texas Youth Commission, signed by the trial court on May 29, 2003, after a hearing on the motion to modify disposition that was held at a time when appellant had already become 18 years of age. Under such circumstances, the trial court's jurisdiction is limited to either dismissing the case or transferring the person to a district court or criminal district court for a criminal proceeding. In Re N.J.A., 997 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Tex.1998). Because, in this case, the trial court was neither dismissing the case, nor transferring it for a criminal proceeding, the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify its disposition of appellant or commit him to the Texas Youth Commission. See In Re D.C., 49 S.W.3d 26, 28 (Tex.App. San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (held after D.C. became 18, trial court had limited jurisdiction over him, which did not include authority to modify his disposition and commit him to Texas Youth Commission).

We vacate the trial court's May 29, 2003 order and dismiss the case. Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(e).

[Editor's Comment: This opinion is correct only if the motion to modify was not filed until after respondent became 18, which seems unlikely in this case. The legislature in 2001 added Family Code Section 51.0412 to abrogate N.J.A. as to cases in which the motion to modify was filed before the respondent became 18 and the State used due diligence to have the modification hearing but it could not be conducted until the respondent became 18.]

2003 Case Summaries     2002 Case Summaries     2001 Case Summaries     2000 Case Summaries     1999 Case Summaries