in Re B.R.H.
426 S.W.3d 163
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Relator B.R.H. seeks mandamus relief from a trial court order denying a motion to dismiss the juvenile complaint.
- The offense occurred in 2009 when B.R.H. was 16; the petition was filed in 2011 after he turned 17.
- Original petition filed June 6, 2011; amended petition approved by Grand Jury for Determinate Sentencing in September 2011.
- B.R.H. turned 18 on August 4, 2011; the court denied the motion to dismiss before adjudication.
- Texas Family Code §51.0412 permits continued jurisdiction where proceedings were incomplete before 18, if due diligence is shown.
- The court held the amended petition relates back and that the State acted with due diligence; mandamus relief denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction after turning 18 under §51.0412 | BRH argues NJA controls; lack of due diligence. | State relies on §51.0412 exception for incomplete proceedings and due diligence. | Jurisdiction retained under §51.0412. |
| Relation back of amended petition to original petition | Amendment extinguishes original petition under Rule 65. | Amendment relates back to June 2011 petition. | Amendment relates back; original petition preserved. |
| Sufficiency of due diligence finding | Due diligence not shown given delays. | Record supports due diligence to complete before 18th birthday. | Some evidence supports due diligence. |
| Effect of N.J.A. on current case | NJA requires dismissal after 18. | 51.0412 abrogates NJA by expanding juvenile jurisdiction. | NJA superseded by §51.0412 for incomplete proceedings. |
| Rule 65 extinguishing prior pleadings | Rule 65 extinguishes the original petition. | Amendment timely filed; relates back. | Rule 65 did not extinguish due to relation back. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.J.A., 997 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. 1999) (limits juvenile jurisdiction after 18; supports dismissal absent exceptions)
- In re Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2006) (trial court must correctly apply law; due diligence context)
- In re V.A., 140 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (exception for incomplete proceedings under §51.0412)
- N.M.P., 969 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998) (due diligence requires action beyond mere delay)
- In re J.C.C., 952 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (review of factual diligence in mandamus context)
- Hooks v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 808 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1991) (mandamus deferential to trial court findings on fact)