law-juveniles delinquency adjudication appeals | Texas Family Code |
RECENT JUVENILE LAW DECISIONS OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of RD, No. 09-0343 (Tex. Feb. 12, 2010)(per curiam)(juvenile proceedings, civil rules applied to
motion for new trial, error preservation for appellate review)
The Texas Supreme Court concludes that [the juvenile's] general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the jury's delinquency finding met Rule 324's requirement for preserving his challenge to the jury's
rejection of his affirmative defense.
IN THE MATTER OF R.D., A JUVENILE; from Bexar County; 8th district (08-07-00100-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-12-
09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing
oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Per Curiam Opinion
In the Matter of H.V., No. 06-0005 (Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)(Brister) (juvenile law, Miranda warning,
requirements for effective invocation of right to counsel, suppression of confession, exclusion of evidence)
IN THE MATTER OF H.V.; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-04-00029-CV, 179 S.W.3d 746, 11-17-05)
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the
trial court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice Johnson,
and Justice Willett joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice
Wainwright and Justice Green joined, and in which Justice Hecht joined as to Parts I, III, and V.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT
08-0881
IN THE MATTER OF T.A., A JUVENILE; from Midland County; 11th district (11-06-00342-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 09-
04-08, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(juvenile case, delinquent conduct by committing the offense of unauthorized use
of a vehicle on six separate occasions) as redrafted
09-0175
IN THE MATTER OF J.J., A CHILD; from Travis County; 3rd district (03-08-00023-CV, 276 SW3d 171, 12-31-08,
pet. denied June 2009) (juvenile matter)
08‑1015
IN THE MATTER OF J.A.L.; from Galveston County; 1st district (01-07-00896-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10‑30‑08)
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court adjudicated J.A.L. as having engaged in delinquent conduct by
committing capital murder and robbery, and sentenced him to forty years’ confinement. J.A.L. attacked the
constitutionality of his conviction in an application for habeas corpus relief, contending that his trial counsel
rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to request a hearing on whether J.A.L. was mentally fit
to proceed before J.A.L. agreed to the plea. The trial court denied relief. We affirm.
08-0562
IN THE MATTER OF S.C.; from Travis County; 3rd district
(03-06-00397-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-03-08, pet. denied Sep 2008) (juvenile case, aggravated robbery, murder)
Section 54.11, which governs transfer/release hearings, provides that a trial court considering whether to
release a juvenile under supervision or transfer him to TDCJ custody may consider "written reports from
probation officers, professional court employees, professional consultants or employees of" TYC, provided that
the juvenile is allowed "access to all written matter to be considered by the court" and "previous examination of
all reports on and evaluations and examinations of or relating to him that may be used in the hearing." Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 54.11(d), (e). (4) As we recently said in In re M.M.:
Thus, because a transfer hearing is not a stage of a criminal prosecution, the hearing does not require the same
stringent requirements as a trial in which a person's guilt is determined, and the statute expressly provides for
the consideration of the [psychological evaluation conducted for the purposes of the transfer hearing], we hold
that the trial court did not err in admitting the evaluation. 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 981, at *11. S.C. has presented
us with no argument or authority explaining why we should not follow our earlier decision. Further, in In re F.D.,
our sister court held that the trial court's consideration of a psychological exam conducted for a transfer/release
hearing when the psychologist did not appear for the hearing did not violate the juvenile's Sixth Amendment
rights, noting that the transfer hearing "is dispositional rather than adjudicative in nature." 245 S.W.3d at 113-
14. (5)
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Daiss's report into evidence during S.C.'s
transfer/release hearing. We overrule S.C.'s sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court's transfer order.
06-0738
IN THE MATTER OF R.J.M.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-06-00265-CV, 211 SW3d 393, 07-26-06, pet.
denied April 2008)(juvenile law, appointment of counsel, DNA testing, jurisdictional dismissal)
In this case of first impression, R.J.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel to
assist him in filing a motion for DNA testing under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We hold
an order of this nature by a juvenile court is not appealable and therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
07-1033
IN THE MATTER OF F.M., A JUVENILE; from El Paso County; 8th district
(08-06-00194-CV, 238 SW3d 837, 10-11-07, pet. denied April 2008)(juvenile law)
After a trial on the merits, a jury found that F.M. had engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offenses
of aggravated kidnaping and aggravated sexual assault. The trial court entered its order of disposition and
sentenced F.M. to a twenty-year determinate sentence at the Texas Youth Commission, with the possibility of
transfer to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”). On October 1, 1993,
the trial court ordered that F.M. be transferred to TDCJ for the remainder of his sentence. In 2006, F.M. filed
several motions in the trial court, including a motion to reduce his sentence. After a hearing, the trial court
granted F.M.’s motion to reduce sentence, reducing his sentence from twenty to fourteen years, and the State
filed its notice of appeal.
07-0212
IN THE MATTER OF M.P., A CHILD; [Dissenting opinion by Justice Vance] from Brazos County; 10th district
(10-06-00008-CV, 220 SW3d 99, 02-07-07, pet. denied Jan 2008) (juvenile delinquent conduct)