in the Matter of J.C. ( 2013 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-12-00386-CV
IN THE MATTER OF J.C.
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-JUV-00404
Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2013
AFFIRMED
J.C., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s adjudication order. We affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
BACKGROUND
J.C. pled true to an allegation that he engaged in delinquent conduct by committing
aggravated sexual assault of a child. Before accepting his plea, the trial court explained to J.C.
the allegations against him and the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings,
including the law relating to admissibility of the record of a juvenile court adjudication in a
criminal proceeding, his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to trial and to
confrontation of witnesses, his right to an attorney, and his right to a jury trial. See TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 54.03(b) (West Supp. 2012). At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
04-12-00386-CV
adjudged that J.C. engaged in delinquent conduct by committing aggravated sexual assault of a
child. After a disposition hearing, the trial court ordered J.C. committed to the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department for an indeterminate sentence.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, J.C. complains that the trial court committed fundamental error during the
adjudication hearing when it failed to admonish him regarding the potential immigration
consequences of his plea of true to the alleged delinquent conduct. J.C. acknowledges that the
trial court admonished him of his rights as mandated by section 54.03 of the Juvenile Justice
Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.03(b). He also concedes that the Juvenile Justice Code
does not contain a requirement that the trial court admonish a juvenile of the deportation
consequences of his plea. Nevertheless, he argues that, in view of the Juvenile Justice Code’s
purpose of assuring a juvenile’s constitutional rights are enforced, the trial court was also
required to admonish him of the possible negative repercussions of his plea on his citizenship
pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). J.C. does not complain of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Assuming, without deciding, that the juvenile court was required to admonish J.C. of
possible deportation consequences, we conclude that the record does not demonstrate that J.C.
was harmed by the trial court’s failure to warn him of potential deportation consequences of his
plea. See, e.g., In re E.J.G.P., 5 S.W.3d 868, 872-73 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, no pet.)
(reviewing record for harm where juvenile complained that trial court erred in failing to
admonish her of possible deportation consequences in accordance with article 26.13 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure). J.C. contends the record in this case is wholly silent regarding his
citizenship status. We disagree. The record before us contains the probation department’s pre-
disposition report, admitted into evidence without objection, in which the probation officer
-2-
04-12-00386-CV
documents that “according to a legible copy of [J.C.’s] birth certificate, [he] was born to [J.B.-J.]
on December 5, 1998 in Bexar County, Texas.” Thus, the record reveals that J.C. was born in
Bexar County, Texas, making him a non-deportable citizen of the United States. See De la Cruz
v. State, No. 04-10-00786-CR, 2011 WL 4088702, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 14,
2011) (mem. op., not designated for publication), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 147 (2012) (holding
failure to admonish defendant of deportation consequences of no contest plea was harmless
where record reflected that defendant was United States citizen); Lawrence v. State, 306 S.W.3d
378, 379 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no pet.) (trial court’s error in failing to admonish appellant
about deportation was harmless where pen packet admitted into evidence reflected that appellant
was born in Texas). Because the record shows J.C. is a United States citizen, and there is no
controverting evidence, we conclude the juvenile court’s error, if any, in failing to advise J.C. of
the possible immigration consequences of his plea was harmless. See VanNortrick v. State, 227
S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court’s failure to admonish defendant on
immigration consequences of his plea is harmless error when record shows defendant to be
United States citizen); see also Gist v. State, No. 07–08–0030–CR, 2009 WL 3320203, at *2
(Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 14, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding
that appellant’s bond paperwork contained in supplemental record which showed that appellant
was born in Arkansas permitted inference that appellant was United States citizen, and thus error
in failing to admonish appellant pursuant to article 26.13 was harmless). Accordingly, we
overrule J.C.’s sole issue on appeal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
-3-