Robinson v. State, 9645.
| Citation | 204 S.W.2d 981 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 9645.,9645. |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bastrop County; John H. Tate, Judge.
Suit by the State against Milton Robinson to have defendant adjudged a delinquent child. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Horace Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.
Leslie D. Williams, Dist. Atty., of Brenham, and Henry Sebesta, Co. Atty., of Bastrop, for appellee.
This is a "delinquent child" case, brought under Art. 2338—1, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. The defendant (appellant here) is a negro boy, 12 years old. The suit was brought in the juvenile (county) court of Bastrop County, where defendant resided, and was transferred to and tried in the district court of that county, upon the county judge's recusing himself. The trial was to the court without a jury, and the judgment decreed the defendant a delinquent child, and committed him to the State School for Boys at Gatesville for an indeterminate period of time, not extending beyond his reaching the age of 21 years. The defendant has appealed and presents four assignments of error. No brief has been filed on behalf of the State. We have, however, carefully perused the entire record, and the conclusions herein expressed are predicated upon that perusal.
The first assignment complains of overruling a special exception to the State's complaint, the pertinent portion of which reads: "* * * that said child is a delinquent child under the law: 5 cases of Arson, a violation of the Penal Law of the State of Texas, of the grade of felony."
The basis of the exception was that the complaint "is indefinite and uncertain and so vague that it makes it impossible for the defendant to properly prepare his defense, to-wit: That the names of the owners of the property involved in the five charges of arson are not given, that the time of the commission of the offenses is not stated, nor is the location of the property set out, nor is the offense of arson stated in a statutory manner."
Sec. 7 of Art. 2338—1 requires filing "a petition alleging briefly the facts which bring said child within the provisions of this Act."
In the case of Dendy v. Wilson, 142 Tex. 460, 179 S.W.2d 269, 277, 151 A.L.R. 1217, in which the constitutionality and construction of the Act were involved, it was held that the Act was valid; that the proceeding therein provided was a civil, and not a criminal one; and that the general rules of procedure and evidence in civil cases applied. To quote from the opinion:
In Re Fisher, Tex.Civ.App., 184 S.W.2d 519, 521, by the Amarillo Court (no app. filed), it was held that while it was not essential that the petition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agler, In re
...of the Evidence1. Texas, In re Conzalez (Civ.App.1959), 328 S.W.2d 475; State v. Ferrell (Civ.App.1948), 209 S.W.2d 642; Robinson v. State (Civ.App.1947), 204 S.W.2d 981. Accord, Stanley v. Whitney (Civ.App.1963), 259 S.W.2d 636; Sutter v. Yutz (Civ.App.1949), 223 S.W.2d 554; State v. Thoma......
-
Gault, Application of
...There is disagreement as to whether the court must advise the infant that he has a right to counsel. Some courts say no, Robinson v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 981, and others say yes. Shioutakon v. District of Columbia, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 236 F.2d 666, 60 A.L.R.2d 686. We have held ......
-
In re B.P.H.
...868 S.W.2d at 940; M.A.V.,. 842 S.W.2d at 745. The charge need only be reasonable and definite. M.A.V., 842 S.W.2d at 745; Robinson v. State, 204 S.W.2d 981, 982 (Tex.Civ. App.-Austin 1947, no Appellant argues that the State had to plead more specific facts in order to provide him with adeq......
-
State in Interest of Carlo, In re, s. A--3
...to sustain a finding of juvenile delinquency. See State v. Lucas, 30 N.J. 37, 152 A.2d 50 (1959), and cf. Robinson v. State, 204 S.W.2d 981 (Ct.Civ.App.Texas 1947). The judgments of the juvenile court are reversed as to both HALL, J., concurs in result. For reversal: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB......