From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

C. L. B. v. State

Supreme Court of Texas
Jul 12, 1978
567 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1978)

Summary

suggesting specific statutes control over general jurisdictional provisions

Summary of this case from Texas Dept., Pub. Saf. v. Levinson

Opinion

No. B-7417.

June 14, 1978. Rehearing Denied July 12, 1978.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court, Dallas County, Penfold, J.

Walter W. Steele, Jr., Maxine T. McConnell and Cynthia Hollingsworth, Dallas, for petitioners.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Maridell J. Templeton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for respondent.


State filed its petitions alleging that C______ L______ B______ and L______ J______ B______ engaged in delinquent conduct by committing a theft. The juveniles filed motions for summary judgment supported by their affidavits. State did not respond to the motions. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the State's petitions with prejudice. The court of civil appeals held that the State had a right to appeal, but reversed and remanded the summary judgments on two grounds which we do not reach. 561 S.W.2d 547.

The court of civil appeals concluded that the State was granted a right of appeal in juvenile delinquency proceedings by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2249, which provides that "An appeal or Writ of Error may be taken to the Court of Civil Appeals from every final judgment of the district court in civil cases." The court reasoned that this general right of appeal was applicable to delinquency proceedings in that such proceedings are civil in nature.

The right of appeal in juvenile proceedings is specifically controlled by Section 56.01 of the Texas Family Code. Section (c) thereof provides that "An appeal may be taken by or on behalf of the child" from certain enumerated orders. On the other hand, the Code does not grant the State a right of appeal. This omission is particularly significant when compared with the predecessor statute, Art. 2238-1, Sec. 21, which granted the right of appeal to "any party aggrieved". We conclude that by this omission the legislature did not grant the State the right to appeal from adverse judgments in juvenile delinquency proceedings. See also, McKnight, Texas Family Law Symposium, 5 Tex.Tech.L.Rev. 582 (1974).

The holding of the court of civil appeals is contrary to Art. 56.01 of the Texas Family Code. Accordingly, the application for writ of error is granted, and without hearing oral argument, the judgment of the court of civil appeals is reversed and that of the trial court affirmed. Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.Proc.


Summaries of

C. L. B. v. State

Supreme Court of Texas
Jul 12, 1978
567 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1978)

suggesting specific statutes control over general jurisdictional provisions

Summary of this case from Texas Dept., Pub. Saf. v. Levinson

suggesting specific statutes control over general jurisdictional provisions

Summary of this case from Shirley v. Dept., Public Safety

In C.L.B. v. State, 567 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1978) (per curiam), the State tried to appeal from a judgment in a juvenile delinquency case.

Summary of this case from In re P.C

In B. L. C. v. State, 543 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (14th Dist.) 1976, writ ref'd n. r. e.), this court found no error in the order of the juvenile court waiving exclusive jurisdiction and transferring the case to the District Court for criminal proceedings. It is the appeal from the finalized judgment of those criminal proceedings that we are now considering.

Summary of this case from Crawford v. State

In B. L. C. v. State, 543 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.), however, we held that the admissibility of a confession should not be considered in an appeal from this type of proceeding as the hearing is not adjudicatory in nature.

Summary of this case from K. W. M. v. State
Case details for

C. L. B. v. State

Case Details

Full title:C. L. B. and L. J. B., Petitioners, v. STATE of Texas, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jul 12, 1978

Citations

567 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1978)

Citing Cases

M. E. C., in re

In this respect, we hold that strict compliance with § 51.09 is not required in a discretionary transfer…

In re S.N

The omission of the State's right to appeal in section 56.01 is particularly significant, considering its…