Bell, Kendall ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. PD-0052-17
KENDALL BELL, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
Appellant, age 16, was charged in juvenile court with delinquent conduct based on
his participation in an aggravated robbery. In July 2013, the juvenile court waived
jurisdiction and transferred the case to the criminal district court. There, appellant pled
guilty without an agreed recommendation and the court deferred guilt and placed him on
community supervision for 6 years. Just over a year later, the State filed a motion to
adjudicate. The court granted the State’s motion and adjudicated guilt.
KENDALL BELL – 2
On appeal after appellant’s guilt was adjudicated, the court of appeals agreed with
appellant that under Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), the juvenile
court abused its discretion by waiving jurisdiction without setting forth in its transfer
order adequate case-specific findings to support its conclusion. Bell v. State, No. 01-15-
00510-CR slip op. (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 15, 2016). The court vacated the
juvenile court’s transfer order and the criminal district court’s judgment, dismissed the
criminal district court case, and remanded to the juvenile court to conduct a new transfer
hearing.
The State has filed a petition for discretionary review challenging appellant’s
ability to attack his transfer order on appeal from the adjudication of his guilt. The State
maintains that a defendant cannot attack the original proceedings on appeal from the
order that adjudicated guilt after a revocation of community supervision. See Davis v.
State, 195 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2001); Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); T EX. C ODE C RIM.
P ROC. 44.47(b) (repealed effective September 1, 2015, but applicable to appellant’s 2013
transfer order). The State’s argument suggests that the court of appeals did not have
jurisdiction to address the merits of appellant’s claim if, indeed, appellant should have
raised the issue on appeal from his deferred adjudication order. See Nix, 65 S.W.3d at 667
(court of appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction and this Court affirmed); Daniels v.
State, 30 S.W.3d 407, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)(same); Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at 660
 KENDALL BELL – 3
(same). Jurisdiction is an absolute, systemic requirement that operates independent of
preservation of error requirements. Henson v. State, 407 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 934 (2014). Appellate courts must review jurisdiction
regardless of whether it is raised by the parties. Skinner v. State, 484 S.W.3d 434, 436
(Tex. Crim. App. 2016). We agree that the jurisdictional issue should be fully vetted by
the court of appeals in the first instance.
We grant ground (1) of the State’s petition, vacate the judgment of the court of
appeals, and remand this case to that court address its jurisdiction in the first instance.
We refuse grounds (2) and (3) of the State’s petition for discretionary review with
prejudice.
DELIVERED March 22, 2017
PUBLISH