law-juveniles delinquency adjudication appeals | Texas Family Code |


In re B.T., No. 10-0383 (Tex. Oct. 1, 2010)(per curiam)(juvenile case; trial court abused discretion in
proceeding without complete diagnostic study)
IN RE B.T., A JUVENILE; from Smith County; 12th district (12-10-00141-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-21-10)
stay order issued May 27, 2010, lifted    
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [
Electronic Briefs in No. 10-0383 IN RE B.T., A JUVENILE    

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)
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
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
IN THE MATTER OF H.V.; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (
02-04-00029-CV, 179 S.W.3d 746, 11-17-
The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to
trial court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O'Neill, Justice Medina, Justice
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.


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

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)

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.  

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,

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.

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.

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.

IN THE MATTER OF M.P., A CHILD; [Dissenting opinion by Justice Vance] from Brazos County; 10th
10-06-00008-CV, 220 SW3d 99, 02-07-07, pet. denied Jan 2008) (juvenile delinquent conduct)