OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable X. K. Baldridge
county Attorney
Denton aounty
Denton, Taxae
war sir: opinion NO. o-7043
IN t The authority
itatendmt o?
sohool for Bo
your letter of Ja
opinion OS this departmen
br you as followa:
of seventeen
evooatlon of a
judgment order
110 Sts-to Sohool
f the i3atclarlUe
ts upon whloh your request is based as as
give you the foilowIng iaots whloh oon-
stituta the basis for the ragueet: on the 5th
day of xaroh 1942, a male ohild fifteen years of
age, who wee duly and legally deolarad to be a
honorable x. IL Baldridge - Page 2
delinquent child by the Gounty Court of this
County and oomItted to the GatesvIlla State
school for Boys until he shall reach the age of
t?.enty one years towlt: November 2, 1947.
“During the afternoon of the day upon whloh
seid ohlld was deolared to be a delinquent ohlld
and oomltted to the Catesvllle State Yohool for
Boys, the mother of said child together with tha
ohlldta uncle appeared berore the County Judge,
being also the Judge of the Juvenile Court, and
aonvinaed aald Court that It would be to the beat
Interest of esld ohlld for him to be paroled to
kg,;;$e who was a resident of Oklahoma City,
There upon. the Court did render Its
order &psndIng his previous order oommIting
the child to the Gatesrllle State Sohool for &ys
ahd paroled the ohlld to his uncle In Oklahoma
City during his good behavior and aubjeat to the
further order of the Court.
*Thereafter on the 14th day of August 1945, said
Court rendered au order finding said ohlld guilty of
other acts aonstltutlng him a delinquent ohlld and
did on that date revoke the parole granted to him
on the 5th day of March 1942 and did order the said
ohlld to be delivered to the ouatody OS the Sheriff
ard by him transported to the GatesvIlla Stat8 School
for mys to serve his aentenoe rendered by said Court
on the 6th day of Zaroh 1942..
“Thereafter on or about the 1st day of July lS44,
said child was Daroled from the Gatesvilla .State School
for Doys to hi8 mother who Is a resident of th!a City.
Thereafter on the 9th day of January 1946, It was znade
to appear to the Court that said child had aomitted
other aats oonstituting him a delinquent ohlld and
the parole heretofore granted to said ohlld on or
about the let d&y of July 1944, was by said Court
revoked and the Court ordered the said ohild to be
delIvered to the custody of the Sheriff and by hln
honorable W. K. gldrldge - page 3
delivered to the authorities at the Gatesvll?e
State Satiool for Boys to oosplate and serve the
sentence imposed upon him on the 5th day of Maroh
1942.
"On the 11th day Of January 1946, the Sheriff
of this County transported the said ohlld to the
Catesvllle state Sohool for Boys In oompllsnoe with
the Juvenile Order or this aouuty. The superintendent
of the Gatesvllle State sohool for Boys refused to
aoaept this ohlld on the ground that ha 18 more than
seventeen years of age end Is now an adult Insofar
as the arkulna law Is ooncerned."
Artlale 2338-l (Veruon*s Ann. Clr. Stat., Aats 1943,
46th Ug.) reads In part as follows:
;.~. -sea. 24. ArtIOles 2329 and 2330 of the
Zevlsed Civil Statutes of Texa8, 1925, are hers-
by repealed.
"All laws and parts of lsws in oonfllat hsre-
with are also r8pealOd.v
Eovmvor, the Act oodalned a saving clause as fol-
lows :
"Sea. 22. Saving clause. IA all eases where
the court has contImIng jurlsdlotlon of the ohlld-
ran already adjudged d8lfucU8Ut, any Of the AOtS
herein repealed shall aontlnue In foroe as applloable
to saFd children, end the provisions of suoh statutes
.my continue to be exercised with reference to all
such children #here suoh jurlsdlatlon haa already
attaohed."
In ?zaldonado v. State (L84 S. 'X. (2d) 859), the Court
;~w;Ivll Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, stated In part 8s fol-
WSinca the order of Xsy 27, 1943, provides for
oontlnuing jurisdiction of the ~uvenlls Court over
the minor, Charles Xaldonado, (Art. 233@3, Vernon's
Ann. CIV. stat., Ammded kots 1941, 47th Lag.) this
HoAOrabla 7. K. Baldridge - Fag8 4
case comas within the provisions of the saving
alauee Of the Ju~8~il8 Aot of 1943, and oonse-
GUaAtly the law8 nmntloaed a8 being rapesled IA
5380. 24 Of the Act, are n8VWth8leSd 8ff8OtiV8
IASofar 88 this oase IS OOA08rn8d.n
IA Opinion No. O-4603 0s the Attorney General 0s
Tams, July 18, 1942, the SollovFiag qU8BtiOn was submftted
by the EoAOrabl8 R. X. Y&ship, Jr., Superintendent, Geteevllla
State school for Boys, for an opinion:
Vhere the oommitting Oourt has rsoalled a
boy, may It later ordar his return to this sohool
lf the boy la then more then sersntaen years of
qge-"
This question was answered as r0ii0w8t
*Under 2338, of the Revised civil
Art. statut8s
ae amended In 1941, the trial oourt has been gIv8n
full povmr and authority to change Its order of
oommltreent by the following langua~et
"'Suoh order shall be subjeot to ahang by
further orders of the court with refOrenCi8 to euoh
child; and the oourt shall have the power to change
the oustody of suoh ohlld or to entirely dleoharge
it from oustody whenever, IA the judgment Of th8
oourt., It la to the best interest of the child to
do 80.’
"If the trial court who Issued the order ooz-
znIttlAg the boy to the lnatItutIoA should mke any
further order relative to the oere, custody or oon-
trol of the boy oomitted, It will,, of course, be
your duty to obay.:'fia order or orderll of the trial
oo\;rt, regardless of how you receive notice thereof."
Honorable :c. K. ~ldrldge - Page 8
AOCOrdiAgly, you are respectfully advised that if
the OOWitMAt oomplies with the t8l'llla Of our StStUt8S, it
I6 the opinion of this deparfment that, under the fsots stated
I,A your letter, the Superintendent of the Gateaville State
5ohool for Boys does not have the authority to rSfUS8 re-admlt-
tanoe of a parolmwho Is now elghhteen years of age, but who was
first Sdmitted to said sohool when under S8Vetlt8OA ybars Of a@.
However, while we do not kuow what sot or aots whloh
are referred to In the request as Rother acts oonstltuting him
a delinquent ohlld* se found by the Oourt and whloh resulted
in the court Order of January'~6, 1948, It should be pointed
out that 8uOh 8Ot8, whether %hSy are f8lOAIS8 or miedelPsanor8,
oould not constitute this eighteen or nineteen year old boy a
dellnrucnt OhIld, for only those boys under 88V8At88A years of
age may be so olasslfled. Suoh eats though muld bS SUffiUi8Ut
reasons for the Court to revoke the parole preriou6ly granted.
7~ wish to point out fttdi8r that any boy who hsd pratl.ously
been adjudged a ndellnquent ohlld" m8y be prosecuted for any
offen88, whether it b8 a leisdemeanor or felony, oollnitted a-
gslnst the laxs of this State after he beoomes seventeen years
of Sg8, and the faot that he had prtWiOuSly~ heen SdjUdg8d 8
raelinqubnt ohlld* does not give him immunity from proeeoution
for euoh orrsnses.
yours very truly
ATTORK'IEY
GENERAL0.3 TEXAS
Bylf?d%-fL.La/
-- Robert L. LattIsKWe,, 'Jr.,
Assistant
James 57. ware
R & E Assistant