|
|
|
|
Opinion filed March 9, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-04-00173-CR
__________
RICHARD PAUL FIELDS, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 35th District Court
Brown County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR16-190
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. We affirm.
Procedural Background
Richard Paul Fields was originally charged as a juvenile in county court with the aggravated sexual assault of E.D.N. (who was under fourteen years of age); with indecency with E.D.N.; and with the sexual assault of C.D.M. and J.D.R. (who were both under seventeen years of age). The county court waived its jurisdiction and transferred appellant to the district court pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.02 (Vernon 2002).
Appellant was then indicted in a multi-count indictment for the aggravated sexual assault of E.D.N.; indecency with E.D.N.; and the sexual assaults of C.D.M. and J.D.R. Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the allegation that he committed aggravated sexual assault of E.D.N. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt, placed him on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $3,000 fine.
After the hearing on the State=s second amended motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that eight of the State=s allegations that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision were true and revoked appellant=s community supervision. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the aggravated sexual assault of E.D.N. and imposed a sentence of confinement for ten years.
Issues on Appeal
In two issues, appellant challenges the district court=s jurisdiction to act. First, appellant contends that the county court failed to properly serve him with notice of the waiver of jurisdiction and transfer to the district court. Therefore, appellant argues that the county court never acquired jurisdiction over him. Appellant also contends that the county court improperly waived its jurisdiction by failing to order and obtain a complete diagnostic study, social evaluation, and full investigation.
County Court=s Jurisdiction Over Appellant
Section 54.02 provides that the petition and notice requirements of Tex. Fam. Code Ann. '' 53.04, 53.05, 53.06, and 53.07 (Vernon 2002) must be satisfied and that the summons must state that the hearing is for the purpose of considering the transfer of the case to a criminal court. Appellant contends that the summons in this case did not comply with the requirements of Section 53.06. We disagree.
The second supplemental clerk=s record contains the summons and the return. The record reflects that both appellant and his mother were served with the summons, that a copy of the petition was attached to the summons, and that the purpose of the hearing was to determine the transfer to criminal court. The return states that appellant was served at 10:45 a.m. on February 21, 2001, and that his mother was served at 12:20 p.m. on the same day.
In the summons, appellant and his mother were directed to appear in county court on March 1, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. Appellant contends that, because the actual hearing on the transfer was conducted on May 10, 2001, he did not receive sufficient notice and the county court was without jurisdiction to act. However, the county court=s docket sheets reflect that appellant changed counsel during this time and that the county court granted at least one continuance.
The record before this court does not support appellant=s contention that the county court failed to acquire jurisdiction over him. The first issue is overruled.
County Court=s Waiver of Its Jurisdiction Over Appellant
Section 54.02(d) provides that the county court Ashall order and obtain a complete diagnostic study, social evaluation, and full investigation of the child, his circumstances, and the circumstances of the alleged offense@ prior to the hearing for discretionary transfer. On February 13, 2001, the county court ordered a psychological examination and a medical examination.
At the May 10 hearing, a psychological report was admitted into evidence. In this report, Dr. Jerry Heard Patrick discussed appellant=s personal history including the circumstances surrounding the offenses, clinical observations, the Weschsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Wide Range Achievement Test results, a diagnosis, and a prognosis. The State tendered a predisposition report or social history prepared by the juvenile probation department. However, the county court sustained appellant=s objection that he did not have at least one day=s access to the report. Lisa Reasoner, who had prepared the report, then testified concerning appellant=s social history. Brownwood Police Officer Robert Mullins testified as to the facts and circumstances of each of the offenses.
We disagree with appellant=s contention that the county court failed to comply with Section 54.02(d) and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to transfer to the district court. The second issue is overruled.
Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
March 9, 2006
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.