in the Matter of D. M. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued June 21, 2018
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    No. 01-17-00950-CV
    No. 01-17-00951-CV
    No. 01-17-00952-CV
    No. 01-17-00953-CV
    ———————————
    IN THE MATTER OF D.M., Appellant
    On Appeal from the 315th District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Case Nos. 2015-00609J, 2015-02057J, 2015-00610J, 2015-02310J
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appellant, D.M., attempts to appeal the trial court’s orders transferring her
    determinate sentence probation from juvenile court to criminal district court for the
    remainder of her probation terms. We dismiss the appeals.
    In each juvenile court proceeding, the State filed a petition alleging delinquent
    conduct against appellant, charging her with delinquent conduct by committing the
    offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.1 And, in each proceeding, the
    juvenile court found that appellant engaged in delinquent conduct and assessed a
    determinate sentence of probation for a period of ten years. On April 19, 2017, the
    juvenile court held a hearing on the State’s “motion to transfer these probations” and
    signed orders transferring appellant’s determinate sentence probations from juvenile
    court to criminal district court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.051(d) (West Supp.
    2017). Appellant filed a notice of appeal of each trial court order.
    Section 56.01 of the Texas Family Code sets out a juvenile’s right to appeal a
    juvenile court’s orders and specifically lists those orders. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.
    § 56.01(a), (c) (West Supp. 2017); In re J.H., 
    176 S.W.3d 677
    , 679 (Tex. App.—
    Dallas 2005, no pet.). A juvenile may appeal an order under:
    (A) Section 54.02 respecting transfer of the child for prosecution as an
    adult;
    (B) Section 54.03 with regard to delinquent conduct or conduct
    indicating a need for supervision;
    (C) Section 54.04 disposing of the case;
    (D) Section 54.05 respecting modification of a previous juvenile court
    disposition; or
    (E) Chapter 55 by a juvenile court committing a child to a facility for
    the mentally ill or intellectually disabled.
    1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011).
    2
    TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 56.01(c)(1). Further, an appeal may be taken “by a person
    from an order entered under Section 54.11(i)(2) transferring the person to the
    custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.” 
    Id. § 56.01(c)(2).
    An order
    under section 54.051 to transfer a determinate sentence probation to a criminal
    district court is not an order enumerated in section 56.01. See 
    id. § 56.01(c)(1),
    (2);
    In re 
    J.H., 176 S.W.3d at 679
    . Thus, the trial court’s orders transferring appellant’s
    determinate sentence probation to criminal district court are not appealable orders.
    See In re V.T., 
    479 S.W.3d 517
    , 518 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2015, no pet.); In re
    T.D.S., No. 14-11-00005-CV, 
    2011 WL 2474056
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
    Dist.] June 23, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re 
    J.H., 176 S.W.3d at 679
    .
    After we notified her of our intent to dismiss the appeals unless she
    demonstrated that we have jurisdiction, appellant responded with a motion to retain
    the appeals. In her motion, she asserts that the list of appealable orders set out in
    section 56.01 is not exclusive and “the transfer of a determinate sentence probation
    from juvenile court to adult district court is akin to modification of a previous
    juvenile court disposition,” which is an appealable order under section
    56.01(c)(1)(D) of the Family Code. Appellant further asserts that the proceedings
    here are distinguishable from those in In re V.T. and In re T.D.S. because “they both
    3
    involved technical complaints prior to the transfer hearing, and not a complete loss
    of jurisdiction to even hold a transfer hearing,” as in appellant’s proceedings.2
    Appellant has not demonstrated that we have jurisdiction over her appeals.
    “The right of appeal in juvenile proceedings is specifically controlled by Section
    56.01 of the Texas Family Code.” C. L. B. v. State, 
    567 S.W.2d 795
    , 796 (Tex. 1978).
    Section 56.01 enumerates which orders are appealable, and “there is no right to
    appeal orders not so included.” In re 
    J.H., 176 S.W.3d at 679
    . Under “the plain
    language of the statute,” a juvenile court’s order transferring determinate sentence
    probation to a criminal district court is not an appealable order. In re J.M., No. 03-
    14-00027-CV, 
    2015 WL 3393819
    at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin May 21, 2015, no pet.)
    (mem. op.). And, we do not have jurisdiction over appellant’s appeals even though
    she contends that the juvenile court lost jurisdiction to hold a transfer hearing. A
    claim of lack of jurisdiction “must be brought to a court through an appropriate
    vehicle and . . . an order transferring determinate sentence probation to district court
    is not appealable.” In re 
    V.T., 479 S.W.3d at 518
    –19; see In re J.M., 
    2015 WL 2
          In the juvenile court, appellant objected to the transfer hearing on the basis that the
    court did not have jurisdiction because “the transfer hearing must have been held
    before [appellant’s] 19th [birthday]” and the hearing was held on her nineteenth
    birthday. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 54.04(q), 54.051(b) (West Supp. 2017). The
    State responded that the “proceeding was not complete before the 19th birthday”
    and asked the court to find that the State had “exercised due diligence in attempting
    to complete this hearing before [appellant’s] 19th birthday.” See 
    id. § 51.0412
    (West
    2014).
    4
    3393819 at *3 (dismissing attempted appeal of order transferring determinate
    sentence probation to criminal district court when appellant contended trial court
    erred because it did not hold hearing before appellant’s eighteenth birthday).
    Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss all
    pending motions as moot.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-17-00952-CV

Filed Date: 6/21/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/25/2018