In re Hoskins, 5729.

Decision Date25 November 1946
Docket NumberNo. 5729.,5729.
Citation198 S.W.2d 460
PartiesIn re HOSKINS.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Dick Dixon, Judge.

Proceeding in the matter of Joe Hoskins, a delinquent child. From an order changing custody after he had been previously declared a delinquent child by the juvenile court, Joe Hoskins, through his father, John W. Hoskins, his next friend, appeals.

Affirmed.

Earl R. Parker, of Dallas, for appellant.

H. Pat Edwards and Warren S. Cook, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Dallas, for appellee.

PITTS, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court changing the custody of Joe Hoskins after he had been previously declared a delinquent child by the juvenile court.

The record reveals that the original proceeding was instituted under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquency Act, Article 2338—1, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. At that hearing a petition in due form was filed in the juvenile court of Dallas County on April 4, 1945, and the hearing was had before Honorable John A. Rawlins, Judge of the juvenile court, on April 18, 1945, without the intervention of a jury and with all the necessary parties present. The record further reveals that the said juvenile court found that Joe Hoskins was born on September 17, 1930, and further found him to be a delinquent child and committed him to the City-County Industrial School for an indeterminate period from one year until the date he reaches the age of twenty-one, to wit, September 17, 1951, subject to the further orders of the said court and that no appeal was perfected from the said judgment; that on July 24, 1945, S. M. Davis, Chief Probation Officer of Dallas County, filed an application in the juvenile court alleging that Joe Hoskins had been previously committed to the City-County Industrial School in accordance with the previous order of the court but that he had been unofficially released from the said institution; that he had committed further acts in violation of the law and petitioner prayed that the custody of Joe Hoskins be changed from the City-County Industrial School to the Gatesville State School for Boys; that on July 26, 1945, a hearing was had before Honorable W. L. Thornton, Judge of the 44th Judicial District, sitting for the juvenile court, and the application of the said S. M. Davis, Chief Probation Officer, to change the custody of the said Joe Hoskins to Gatesville State School for Boys was granted subject to the further orders of the court and he was committed to said school; that on August 9, 1945, Joe Hoskins, by and through his attorney here of record and his father, John W. Hoskins, as next friend, filed a lengthy motion in the District Court of the 95th Judicial District attacking the proceedings previously had in the charges made against Joe Hoskins and the hearings on the same and further alleging that the original judgment in the case of date April 18, 1945, was void and prayed for a rehearing of the last aforesaid judgment of date July 26, 1945; that on August 14, 1945, a lengthy reply thereto was filed by S. M. Davis, Chief Probation Officer, joining issues with Joe Hoskins on the matters pleaded in his motion for a rehearing; that on August 15, 1945, the issues in the motion for rehearing and reply thereto were heard by "Olin E. Nesmith, Special Judge 95th District Court, sitting for judge, 95th District Court," at which hearing the court found that the original judgment in the case of date April 18, 1945, was valid but it sustained the motion of Joe Hoskins, set aside the judgment of date July 26, 1945, recalled Joe Hoskins from the Gatesville Training School for Boys and committed him to the City-County Industrial School as provided for in the original judgment from which order there entered no appeal was perfected; that on August 28, 1945, the parties and their counsel appeared for a further hearing in the matter before Honorable John A. Rawlins, Judge of the juvenile court, when an agreed judgment approved by the said court was entered to the effect that Joe Hoskins, who had been declared a delinquent child on April 18, 1945, be and he was recalled from the City-County Industrial School and he was there sentenced to Gatesville State School for Boys but the sentence was suspended pending his good behavior and he was placed in the care and custody of his sister, Mrs. B. D. Patrick, and he was also required to report each week to the probation officer from which order no appeal was perfected.

It further appears that on May 16, 1946, James E. Tidwell, Assistant Probation Officer of Dallas County, filed in the juvenile court an application asking that the custody of Joe Hoskins be changed from his sister, Mrs. B. D. Patrick, to the Gatesville State School for Boys alleging that the said Joe Hoskins had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence and parole to his said sister; that on March 19, 1946, Joe Hoskins, through his attorney of record and his father, John W. Hoskins, as next friend, answered and joined issues with the said Assistant Probation Officer, challenged the jurisdiction of the court and again claimed the original judgment in the case of date April 18, 1945, was void; that on March 26, 1946, Honorable Dick Dixon, Judge of the juvenile court, heard the issues raised in the said application and reply thereto with all parties present and found that the order of August 28, 1945, paroling Joe Hoskins to his sister, Mrs. B. D. Patrick, should be revoked and that it would be for the best interest of Joe Hoskins that he be committed to the custody of the Gatesville State School for Boys for an indeterminate period of from one year until he reaches the age of twenty-one years, to wit, September 17, 1951, subject to the further orders of the said court and it was so ordered from which order changing the custody of the said child an appeal was perfected to the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas and the same was transferred to this Court by the State Supreme Court.

Appellants, Joe Hoskins and his father, John W. Hoskins, assigned fourteen points of error attacking the proceedings generally but particularly contending that the original judgment of conviction was void and therefore all subsequent proceedings were void for want of jurisdiction, complaining because the trial judge declined to empanel a jury for the last hearing and making other contentions that will be later herein discussed.

Appellants challenged the authority of Honorable John A. Rawlins, Judge of the 116th Judicial District, to serve as judge of the Dallas County Juvenile Court at the time the original judgment was entered on April 18, 1945, declaring Joe Hoskins to be a delinquent child. They further challenged the sufficiency of the order of the Dallas County Juvenile Board naming Honorable John A. Rawlins judge of the Dallas County Juvenile Court and contend that because of the insufficiency of the said order, Dallas County had no juvenile court at the time the original judgment in this case was entered. The said order as taken from the minutes of the 116th Judicial District of Dallas County showing a meeting and the proceedings of the Juvenile Board of Dallas County designating a juvenile judge on December 16, 1944, reads as follows:

"Meeting called to order by the Chairman, John A. Rawlins; Present: Judges Cramer, Stinson, Winter King, Henry King, Bush, Hughes and Templeton. Absent: Judge W. L. Thornton, (excused).

"On nomination by Judge Paine L. Bush, seconded by Judge William Cramer, Judge Jno. A. Rawlins was unanimously elected Chairman of the Juvenile Board and Juvenile Judge of Dallas County, for a period of six months beginning January 1, 1945. * * * /s/ Jno. A. Rawlins, Chairman."

Section 4 of Article 2338—1 provides in part as follows:

"There is hereby established as follows, in each county of the state, a court of record to be known as the Juvenile Court * * *.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Naylor
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • February 5, 1965
    ...Erwin v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W.2d 303, 305 (1952); In re O'Day, 83 Cal.App.2d 339, 189 P.2d 525 (1948); In re Hoskins, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W.2d 460 (1946); Harwood v. State ex rel. Pillars, 184 Tenn. 515, 201 S.W.2d 672, 674 (1947). It likewise has been held that the constitutiona......
  • State v. Ferrell, 14922.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 5, 1948
    ...Santillian v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 554, 182 S.W. 2d 812, 159 A.L.R. 1098; Ballard v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 329; In re Hoskins, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W.2d 460, writ refused, no reversible error; In re Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W.2d 844, writ refused, no reversible It appears from th......
  • In re Brown
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 1947
    ...in such cases is to pass upon the issue of delinquency. Dendy v. Wilson, 142 Tex. 460, 179 S.W.2d 269, 151 A.L.R. 1217; In re Hoskins, Tex.Civ.App., 198 S.W.2d 460, writ ref. Whether tried by a jury or by the court, if the child is found to be a delinquent then it is squarely up to the tria......
  • Cockrell, In re
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 1973
    ...of, and in revoking the, probation. In re Seay, 487 S.W.2d 770 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1972, no writ); In re Hoskins, 198 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The record has been reviewed in awarences of the public concern for, and the legal safeguards designed to pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT