Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed =
May 3,=20
2007.
In The
Fourteenth=20
Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-00874-CV
____________
IN THE=20
MATTER OF A.M.L., A Juvenile
On Appeal from the =
County=20
Court at Law No. 1
Fort=20
Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause =
No. 12351
M E M O R=20
A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant,=20
a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent after pleading true to the =
charge=20
of burglary of a habitation as alleged in the State=3Ds first=20
amended petition. Appellant appeals from a disposition order =
signed=20
September 25, 2006, placing him on probation until his eighteenth=20
birthday. =20
We dismiss the appeal.
On January=20
3, 2007, the State submitted a motion for negative termination of =
the=20
juvenile=3Ds=20
probation to the trial court in the presence of the juvenile, his=20
guardian, guardian ad litem, and a representative of the Fort Bend =
County=20
Juvenile Probation Department. The trial court signed an =
order=20
terminating appellant=3Ds=20
probation, and closing the case. In addition, the State =
withdrew its=20
pending motion to revoke appellant=3Ds=20
probation.
The State=20
asserts that this appeal has been rendered moot. A case =
becomes moot=20
when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a =
legally=20
cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, =
455 U.S.=20
478, 481, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183 (1982); In the Matter of =
G.E., ‑‑‑=20
S.W.3d ‑‑‑, No. =
08‑05‑00147‑CV, 2006 WL 2457069 (Tex. App.CEl Paso=20
Aug.24, 2006, no pet.) (applying rule to a juvenile appeal). =
An=20
appeal from a juvenile disposition order is rendered moot by the=20
termination of the juvenile=3Ds=20
probation because there is no live controversy between the parties =
and=20
resolution of the appeal would not have any effect on the =
underlying=20
case. Id. at *1.
There are=20
two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) capable of repetition =
yet=20
evading review and (2) collateral consequences. General =
Land=20
Office of the State of Texas v. Oxy U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d =
569, 571=20
(Tex. 1990). To invoke the Acapable of=20
repetition yet evading review@ =
exception, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the challenged action =
was too=20
short in duration to be litigated fully before the action ceased =
or=20
expired; and (2) a reasonable expectation exists that the same =
complaining=20
party will be subjected to the same action again. Williams v. =
Lara,=20
52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Given that =
appellant=3Ds=20
probation has been terminated and his case closed, there is no =
reasonable=20
expectation that he would again be subjected to a modification or=20
revocation of his probation. See In re R.M., Jr., =
‑‑‑ S.W.3d=20
‑‑‑, No.=20
08-06-00008-CV, 2007 WL 896502, *1 (Tex. App.CEl Paso, Mar. 22, =
2007, no pet.=20
h.). Consequently, the first exception to the mootness =
doctrine does=20
not apply.
The=20
collateral consequences exception pertains to severely prejudicial =
events,=20
the effects of which continue to stigmatize individuals long after =
the=20
judgment has ceased to operate. General Land Office, =
789=20
S.W.2d at 571; In the Matter of J.P.D., No. =
03‑02‑00425‑CV, 2003 WL=20
1922466 (Tex. App.CAustin=20
April 24, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). This exception was =
applied in=20
Carrillo v. State, 480 S.W.2d 612, 616‑17 (Tex. =
1972), where a=20
juvenile was discharged from probation while his case was on =
appeal. =20
Noting that juvenile adjudications carry deleterious collateral =
effects=20
and legal consequences including the stigma attached to being =
adjudged a=20
juvenile delinquent, the Supreme Court held that =
Carrillo=3Ds case was=20
not moot because Aa minor=20
should have the right to clear himself by appeal@ =
and this=20
right should not disappear when the sentence given is so short =
that it=20
expires before the appellate process is completed. =
Id. at=20
617. An appeal from the disposition order placing appellant =
on=20
probation has been rendered moot by the termination of=20
appellant=3Ds=20
probation. While the collateral consequences exception to =
the=20
mootness doctrine might apply to an appeal from an adjudication of =
delinquency in a juvenile case, appellant has not responded to =
this=20
court=3Ds notices=20
or otherwise expressed a desire to a appeal the =
adjudication.
Moreover,=20
appellant entered a plea of true and stipulated to the evidence, =
and the=20
court entered a disposition order in accordance with =
appellant=3Ds=20
agreement with the State. The Family Code limits a=20
juvenile=3Ds right to=20
appeal under these circumstances. AA child=20
who enters a plea or agrees to a stipulation of evidence . . . may =
not=20
appeal an order of the juvenile court entered under Section 54.03, =
54.04,=20
or 54.05 if the court makes a disposition in accordance with the =
agreement=20
between the state and the child regarding the disposition of the =
case,=20
unless: (1) the court gives the child permission to appeal; or (2) =
the=20
appeal is based on a matter raised by written motion filed before =
the=20
proceeding in which the child entered the plea or agreed to the=20
stipulation of evidence.@ =
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. =
' =
56.01(n).=20
Compliance with section 56.01(n) has been held to be =
jurisdictional and=20
the failure to abide by its terms subjects an appeal to dismissal =
for want=20
of jurisdiction. In the Matter of R.J.D., 2006 WL =
3497671, *1=20
(Tex. App.CSan=20
Antonio 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.); In the Matter of =
B.N.C.,=20
No. 04‑02‑00788‑CV, 2003 WL 1232997, at *1 (Tex. =
App.CSan=20
Antonio 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.); In the Matter of =
A.E.E. 89=20
S.W.3d 250, 254 (Tex. App.CTexarkana=20
2002, no pet.).
The record=20
before this court does not reflect that the trial court expressly =
granted=20
appellant permission to appeal. In addition, our record =
contains no=20
written motions filed before the juvenile=3Ds=20
plea. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider =
the=20
appeal.
On March 16, 2007, =
and on April=20
5, 2007, notification was transmitted to the parties, including=20
appellant=3Ds appointed counsel, =
the=20
guardian ad litem, and appellant=3Ds grandmother, of =
this=20
court=3Ds intention to =
dismiss the=20
appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response=20
demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. =20
See Tex. R. App. =
P.=20
42.3(a). No response to the court=3Ds notices has been =
filed by=20
appellant or anyone on his behalf.
Accordingly, the =
appeal is=20
ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion =
filed May=20
3, 2007.
Panel consists of Chief Justice =
Hedges and=20
Justices Hudson and Guzman.
The record reflects that=20
appellant=3Ds eighteenth birthday was April 28,=20
2007.
A second notice was transmitted =
to ensure=20
that appellant=3Ds guardian and the guardian ad litem =
received=20
notice of the court=3Ds intention to dismiss the=20
=
appeal. |