Lockamy v. State, 12021
| Decision Date | 20 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 12021,12021 |
| Citation | 488 S.W.2d 954 |
| Parties | Robert LOCKAMY et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Steven Bercu, Travis County Legal Aid & Defender Society, Austin, for appellants.
Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen., Max P. Flusche, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of Travis County denying the relief sought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of more than five hundred juveniles in the custody of The Texas Youth Council. We will reverse that judgment.
The petitioners alleged that they had been adjudged delinquent by orders of numerous juvenile courts in ninety-five counties across Texas. They alleged further that as none of them had been afforded counsel as required by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., art. 2338--1, Section 7--B, and the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, they were entitled to be released. released.
In the hearing it was determined that none of the petitioners had counsel at the commitment proceedings. After hearing, the district court ordered released from custody of The Texas Youth Council four of the juveniles who had not been afforded counsel and who had been found delinquent by the courts of Travis County. That part of the order is not before this Court. The court further denied all relief to nineteen of the juveniles whom the evidence showed to have had the benefit of counsel in the proceedings in which they were determined to be delinquent. No complaint is made as to that portion of the order. With respect to the balance of the petitioners, the court denied all relief and remanded them to the custody of The Texas Youth Council. The remand was without prejudice to their refiling petitions for writs of habeas corpus in those counties which they were originally adjudged delinquent.
In delinquency proceedings, it is obligatory that children alleged to be delinquent be afforded the assistance of counsel. Tex.Rev.Stat.Ann., art. 2338--1, Section 7--B, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). As none of the petitioners had the benefit of counsel in those proceedings, it follows that their commitment to the custody of The Texas Youth Council was without foundation in law and void.
Although the district court was in agreement as to the invalidity of the commitment of the petitioners, nevertheless, the court denied petitioners relief for the stated reason that petitioners should have filed their petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the courts in those counties in which they originally were found to be delinquent. In support of this result the state relies on Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). In that case the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus in case of a felony must be filed in the district court in the county of the conviction pursuant to Tex.Code of Crim.P.Ann., art. 11.07, rather than in the Court of Criminal Appeals as an original proceeding.
As delinquency proceedings are civil in nature, 1 the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable, and Ex parte Young, Supra, is neither controlling nor persuasive.
Any objections to venue in Travis County were waived by the failure of the state to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...do not apply. J.J.H. v. State, 557 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Civ.App.1977); In re V.R.S., 512 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Civ.App.1974); Lockamy v. State, 488 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Civ.App.1972). Thus, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including Art. 32A.02, V.A.C.C.P., do not apply until a defendant i......
-
Detox Industries, Inc. v. Leeds
......Leeds. With six points of error, Detox seeks a reversal and remand. In the state" of the appellate record, the points will be overruled and the judgment will be affirmed. \xC2"......
-
Bretz v. State
...Sec. 4, in reference to the proper appellate route where a juvenile is bound over to a criminal district court. (See also, Lockamy v. State, 488 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1972, no Further, the Court of Criminal Appeals faces, each term, scores of appeals from bond forfeiture proceedi......
-
J. J. H. v. State
...by our rules of civil procedure. Brenan v. Court of Civil Appeals, Fourteenth District, 444 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Tex.Sup.1969); Lockamy v. State, 488 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1973, no writ). A plaintiff is not required to plead facts supporting venue in the county of suit until the ......