*1 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Ap- LIGHT, Appellant, plicant to credit for the 93 is entitled Travis William juvenile facility that he was detained prior to his certification. Texas. The STATE of
Applicant asserts that he is also good entitled to credit for conduct time No. 0761-99. during time that he was held earned Green, juvenile facility. deciding Texas, Appeals of Court of Criminal did not addrеss the En Banc. Green, good conduct time. J., dissenting). (Teague, S.W.2d at 559 April However, logic the same in Green granted relief be
Applicant any good credit for time earned while he was detained
conduct prior juvenile facility certification. Green, this Court noted did purposes, legislature
time credit any intend in the treatment difference juveniles and initially
of those detained as stated, “We
those detained as adults. We in enacting
do not think that Article 2(a) Legislature intended that initially as a
individual detained adult, prosecut
and later certified an then accordingly, should be
ed and sentenced differently than who is any
treated one Green,
initially as an adult.” detained reasoning is
S.W.2d at 557. The same
applicable to this case. Therefore well as adults are entitled to
niles as pre good conduct time for their
benefit of
trial detention. corpus relief is
Habeas that in cause number CR-1235-92-
extent
D, 1 and out of the 206th Dis- Counts Hidalgo County, the Texas
trict Court Justice is ordered
Department of Criminal Applicant be considered for
to ensure period men- credit for the time
additional All relief is requested
tioned above. other
denied. be sent to
Copies of this shall Justice, Department of Criminal
the Texas Parole Divisions.
Institutional and *2 Bradley, Atty., George- Asst. Dist.
John Austin, town, Paul, Atty., Matthew for State.
PER CURIAM. asks us to
In this case Ap Third review properly addressed an peals v. Light brief. See raised State, (Tex.App. 993 S.W.2d —Austin vacate and remand. re appeals
The cоurts of
are
every
quired
to review
raised
necessary
disposition
party
a
appeal.
Tex.R.App.
of that
Proc.
47.1(a);1 Davis v.
817 S.W.2d
(Tex.Cr.App.1991) (holding that
a
appeals
courts of
should not dismiss
point
properly
of error when it is
briefed
by party).
appeals
a
Failure
a court of
point
properly
of error
raised
address a
party requires
a
remand for consider
Davis,
point
of that
of error. See
ation
(remanding
neglected
The
before us is whether
overlooked
appel-
that was based on the
in court that he had been
lant’s admission
personally served with summons.
juvenile.
juve-
was a
a transfer
at which
nile court held
if he had
the court asked
with
of this summons
been “served
notice
today.”
appel-
two entire
had. The court transferred
lant said he
Rock,
an adult for three
Cummings,
Patricia
Round
him to stand trial as
J.
sexual assault and
appellant.
aggravated
counts of
disposition
appeal.”
essary
1. "The court of
must hand down
to final
Tex.R.App.
practicable
47.1(a).
opinion that is as brief as
written
P.
every
and nec-
but that addresses
issue raised
not served
indecenсy
one count of
child. The was
said,
order
“The
court’s transfer
The summons
petition.
or a
that all those entitled to sum-
Court finds
upon ap-
was served
directed to
with summons
mons were
for the
pellant’s
investigator
father
*3
53.07,
Family
in
Texas
compliance
at
county attorney’s office.” Id.
743. The
Code,
jurisdiction
and that
this Court has
finding,
the basis for its
court did not state
per-
proceed.”
to
Section 53.07
have been a notation on the
persons
sonal service. The
to be served
The court held
process.3
return of the
summons,
accompanied
with the
which is
personal
lack of
service had left
this
petition,
juve-
copy
include the
jurisdiction to
juvenile
court without
nile.2
have transferred the case to the district
counts,
guilty plea
on all
Pursuant
to
court, and it vacated the sentence and
appellant
the trial court sentenced the
to
juvenile
to the
court.
remanded the case
prison
aggravated
ten
in
for each
years
at
750-51.
inde-
eight years
sexual assault and
juvenile
court
argues
The State
cency with a child.
justified
on thе
relying
was
Appeals
held
On
Court
statement,
contrary
instead of
information
juvenile
court had failed to ac-
process,
on the return of the
written
appellant be-
quire jurisdiction over the
personally
process
decide that
cause the State had not
ad-
appellant.4
served on the
Without
appellant
with the summons as re-
argu-
dressing the merits of
State’s
quired
Family
Code. See
Texas
ment,
we find that
the Court of
Light,
feet, in the brief waived such service.” forth above and raised in that held that a court. proper not waive service without com- JOHNSON, J., a dissenting filed plying Family 51.09.8 Id. Code sec. opinion. at 749-50. The court’s discussion of waiv- er, however, did not whether the address JOHNSON, J., a dissenting filed justified on the relying opinion. instead of the return majority I re- respectfully dissent. The process.9 of the says mands this cause because of Appeals argu- did not address an responds that he admitted ment rаised the state his father had given service on disagree. I brief. hearing, him notice of the certification but petition dis- state’s person- that he did not admit cretionary following ground: review on the ally by the We decline to State. erroneously “The Third Court of interpret what the meant failed to address the state’s meaning admission. The *5 that admitted on the rеcord question admission a fact left to the is best personally been an adult had served before trial court. See Guzman v. certification was held.” the (holding 89 (Tex.Cr.App.1997) appeals, court of the argued state appellate that almost courts should show evidence, trial court given the “the total a trial of findings deference to court’s accept appel- to assess the facts and free especially are findings fact when those possible personal lant’s statement over on or credibility based an evaluation of documentary mistake” that “under and demeanor). circumstances, prop- the trial court these of judgment We vacate the of the Court erly personal found that service footnote, accomplished.” and remand the case the In a it noted § of to address the contention set “that does not 53.06] [Tex. Fam. Code contrary clearly appears five-paragraph 8. “Unless a intent section the State's brief to title, any right points, para- elsewhere in to a dissent the first two the waiver, by by graphs remaining child this title or or and the three constitution claim argue be laws this state or the United States for deference to if: For last proceedings waived in under this title court’s factual determinations. section, supra paragraphs see three (1) by waiver is made child and note child; attorney (2) attorney waiving space the child In addition to the amount of that the and the section, provides right argument in this informed of and understand State are only right possible consequences and of waiv- dissent’s that the State claim it; ing waiver belied the citation to is Guzman argument. simply ir- is (3) State's voluntary; Guzman and waiver waiver, highly relevant to while (4) writing waiver made in or the Court of relevant proсeedings Fam court that are recorded.” § deferred to the Code 51.09. should have finding. factual only Simply alternative ar- because the State made 9. The dissent claims that the appel- personal arguments legal as gued ser- to the effect of waived admission, the Court of vice admission. Post 108-09. lant’s pick facets of argue left free tо and choose which argues that the State did not that argument it permitted ac- the State’s would address. trial court should have been contrary requirement appellant's think that the courts cept the admission over that necessary process every to dis- as an address issue information on the return of the comprehends addressing personal pose showing ser- of an proper affirmative arguments as finding arguments well as vice this factual should have alternative and that topics. that are more distinct in their appeal. on In the been deference 51.09(a) (West 1996). expressly prevent § a child waiving from Ann. No such object service fading summons appears waiver in the instant reсord. making contrary admission added). (emphases Id. at 749-50 judge.” to a Citing service to Tex. Fam. clearly paragraph above shows 53.06(e), the state also conceded the court answered the state’s that “a child does not waive service of the appellant’s waiver admission. The by voluntary appearance at the court language found under the strict Thus, hearing.” argument, the state’s code, personal of the service could while clarity, appears not a model of to be conditions, waived under and only certain admission waived such ser- appel- these conditions do not include vice. lant’s in the instant admission case. appeals’ section court of Furthermore, to the extent labeled Personal Jurisdic say, state’s can be read to as the tion,” first notes that the state’s majority argues, upon appellant’s “relies affirma is evidence should tive answer court’s inquiry be taken into account in reviewing the finding service and the in the court’s determination that had nile persons court’s order that ‘all’ sеrved, been summoned in peals rejected argument,1 with section 53.07 of the Family Code.” good Contrary reason. to the state’s as- (Tex. Light sertion, appears that there is no evi- App. It then goes —Austin dence of appellant’s admission of state that *6 service. both According to the court of [t]he cases discussed earlier make cleаr appeals2 brief, and the state’s own that a cannot legally waive the you asked “Were served personal service summons in a notice this summons at least two Nevertheless, certification hearing. today.” entire Appellant an- argues that under the circum- “Yes, swered, Your Certainly ap- Honor.” stances, appellant, effect, waived such summons; had notice of the observed, however, service. that un- knew that his father had been served. der Title of the Juvenile Justice Code issue, however, The is whether has there Code, of Chapter 51 of the Family any requirement right granted to a child under the title service mandated Fam. Tex. or by the constitution and laws not whether knew state or the United States through his father that his case had been only waived waiver is made if particular day. set on a attorney child and his being duly after warned the right and the conse- The Court of all ar- addressed it, quences waiving voluntary, is guments raised the state brief is writing court, made in a recorded is all that it Tex.R.App. court proceeding. See Tex. Fam.Code to do.3 P. See 47.1. Because court, ("The Light, 743-44 rec- appears 3.In its brief to this the state ord reflects that was not served argument: appellant make an additional personally with a summons or a estopped by admission from petition. directed complaining service. lack upon father an in- This was not made to the court vestigator cоunty attorney’s office ... submission, appeals original first but was only attempted one record reflects appeals court of on the state’s appellant.”) summons on rehearing, only motion in a and then footnote. overruled the 2. See id. rehearing, motion for and was within its dis- case, I remanding there no basis for
dissent. WILLIAMS, Appellant,
Doris M. TEXAS, ONE, N.A.,
BANK Mo- Mazda Inc., America,
tor of & Mazda Waco Waco, Texas, Appellees.
Subaru of
No. 10-99-077-CV. Texas,
Waco. 8, 1999.
Dec. *7 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). 124-25 doing Rochelle cretion in so. See