Stockton v. State
| Decision Date | 14 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 5306,5306 |
| Parties | David STOCKTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Don W. Cantrell, Gatesville, for appellant.
J. Albert Dickie, Gatesville, for appellee.
The facts are without dispute. On October 5, 1973, a petition was filed by appellee in which it sought an adjudication by the Juvenile Court of Coryell County that appellant 'engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision.' No hearing or adjudication has been held or made on this petition. On October 17, 1973, appellee filed another petition in which it asked the Juvenile Court to waive its jurisdiction and transfer the case to the proper criminal court for trial. After a hearing thereon, over appellant's objection, on October 17, 1973, the Juvenile Court waived jurisdiction and ordered the case transferred to the criminal court. Both petitions and the transfer order are founded on the same three felony offenses allegedly committed by appellant on October 2, 1973, when he was 16 years of age.
In his single point of error, appellant asserts the order of transfer is void. He relies upon that portion of Section 53.04, V.T .C.A. Family Code 1 which authorizes the State, when the circumstances warrant it, to file 'a petition for an adjudication or transfer hearing of a child alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision'; and paragraph (c) of Article 30, Vernon's Ann.Penal Code of 1925, which, at the time in question, provided: 'A person who has been alleged in a petition for an adjudication hearing to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision may not be prosecuted for or convicted of any offense alleged in the juvenile court petition or any offense within the knowledge of the juvenile court judge as evidenced by anything in the record of the juvenile court proceedings.' 2 He argues that because the State based its petition for an adjudication of delinquent conduct and its petition for transfer on the same criminal offenses, Section 53.04 of the Family Code and Article 30 of the Penal Code put the State to an election of filing one or the other of the petitions and prohibited the filing of the petition for transfer After the petition for adjudication; and that the hearing and the order on the petition for transfer are therefore void.
We find nothing in the Family Code or the Penal Code which prohibits the filing of a petition for transfer, or a hearing thereon, or an order granting the petition, merely because a petition for adjudication was first filed. To the contrary, Sec. 54 .02 of the Family Code expressly authorizes the Juvenile Court to waive jurisdiction and transfer a child to the appropriate criminal court for trial if the child was 15 years of age or older at the time he is alleged to have committed a felony offense and '(if) no adjudication hearing has been conducted concerning that offense,'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B.V., Matter of
...petition) seek waiver and transfer. R.E.M. v. State, 541 S.W.2d 841, 844 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Stockton v. State, 506 S.W.2d 918, 919 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1974, no While we do not have an expressly alternative pleading, it is not unfair to read the two document......
-
G. B. B., Matter of, 6696
...adjudge delinquent and then later filed a petition seeking transfer. In each case, the complaint was held to be without merit. Stockton v. State, 506 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1974, no writ); In re W. R. M., 534 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1976, no writ); R E M v. State, 541 S.W.2......
-
W. R. M., In re
...to the type of proceeding it wishes to pursue. We think this issue was correctly decided adversely to appellant's position in Stockton v. State, 506 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1974, no writ) wherein the court 'We find nothing in the Family Code or the Penal Code which prohibits the fili......
-
R______ E______ M______ v. State
...the juvenile court of jurisdiction to certify appellant for prosecution as an adult. We agree with the conclusion reached in Stockton v. State, 506 S.W.2d 918, 919 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco 1974, no writ), where it was said, 'Former jeopardy is an affirmative defense. It must be specially pleaded......