COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
No. 08-14-00001-CV
In the Matter of §
Appeal from the
C.J.B., §
County Court
A Juvenile. §
of Crane County, Texas
§
(TC# 363)
§
OPINION
Appellant C.J.B., a minor, pleaded true to two separate counts of delinquency at separate
times: a misdemeanor offense (making a terrorist threat against a public servant, TEX.PENAL
CODE ANN. § 22.07(c)(2)(West 2011)) and a felony offense (assault on a public servant,
TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.01(a)(1), (b)(1)(West Supp. 2014)). The trial court placed C.J.B.
on supervision and ordered treatment. After Appellant failed to complete treatment, the State
moved to revoke supervision for both charges and requested he be committed to the Texas
Juvenile Justice Department. In a consolidated hearing, the trial court granted the request and
ordered him incarcerated at TJJD.1 C.J.B. appealed. In this cause number, we address the trial
1
The trial court issued two judgments ordering Appellant incarcerated at TJJD. Each judgment corresponded with
the original underlying charges to which Appellant pleaded true.
court’s ability to sentence Appellant to TJJD only insofar as it related to the misdemeanor
charge.
In Issue One, Appellant contends that the order at bar is void because the trial court had
no authority to order him committed to TJJD for violation of a supervision term relating to a
misdemeanor charge. The State concedes that the trial court had no authority to order Appellant
into TJJD for the misdemeanor. We agree with Appellant and the State, and find that the trial
court imposed an illegal sentence to the extent that it ordered Appellant committed to TJJD for
the misdemeanor charge. See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 54.05(f)(West 2014)(allowing for TJJD
incarceration for felony offenses); In re J.M., 287 S.W.3d 481, 490-91 (Tex.App.--Texarkana
2009, no pet.)(noting that order erroneously stated that misdemeanor theft could support TJJD
incarceration).
We therefore vacate the disposition order and remand the cause for a new disposition
hearing. It is unnecessary to address Issues Two, Three, and Four. We reserve our discussion on
the propriety of the second TJJD order and on Appellant’s ultimate disposition for Cause No.
364.
April 29, 2015
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
2