### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. PD
- 1383
- 18

KENDALL BELL , Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE ’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY

P ER C URIAM . O P I N I O N
In 2013, when he was sixteen years old, Appellant was charged with delinquent conduct in juvenile court for his participation in an aggravated robbery

. After a hearing, the juvenile court signed an order waiving its exclusive jurisdiction and transferring Appellant to district court for adult cr iminal proceedings

. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § 54.02(a).Bell

- 2 Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty and was placed on six years of deferred adju dication community supervision. In 2015, Appellant’ s community supervision was revoked and he was adjudicated guilty. In h is appeal from the adjudication of his guilt, Appellant raised a challenge to the juvenile court’s transfer order based on this Court’s decision in Moon v. State , 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that juvenile court’s order transferring juvenile to adult criminal court must contain case

- specific factual findings in support of the decision to transfer). The court of appeals sustained Appellant’s complaint that his transfer order was invalid under Moon , vacated the conviction, and remanded the case to the juvenile court for further proceedings

. Bell v. State , 512 S.W.3d 553 , 559

- 60 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2016). The State filed a petition for discretionary review in which it contended, among other things, 1 that the cour t of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s Moon challenge on appeal from the adjudication of his guilt following revocation of community supervision . We granted review of this jurisdictional issue, and because the court of appeals had not con sidered it, we vacated t he court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for the court of appeals to consider that issue in the first instance. Bell v. State , 515 S.W.3d
900 , 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (per curiam).

1 The State also raised two other grounds in which it contended: (1) that the court of appeals misinterpreted Moon and thus erroneously held that the transfer order in this case was deficient, and (2) that Moon should be reexamined. We refused review of th ese additional grounds.Bell

- 3 On remand, the court of appeals conc luded that it had jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s Moon challenge. Bell v. State , 569 S.W.3d 241 , 247 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 2018 ) (substitute op.). It then adopted its prior holding finding the transfer order defective, vacating the conviction , and remanding the case to the juvenile court. Id. at 243,
247. The State again petitioned for discretionary review, and we granted the State’s petition to consider whether the court of appeals correctly held that it had jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s c hallenge to his transfer order at this procedural juncture. Since granting the State’s petition, this Court issued its opinion in Ex parte Thomas , No. WR

- 89,128

- 01, 2021 WL 1204352 (Tex. Cri m. App. Mar. 31, 2021). In Thomas , we expressly disavowed Moon and rejected its rule requiring that case

- specific findings be included in a juvenile court’s transfer order. Id. at *7

- 8. The court of appeals did not have the benefit of Thomas when it issued its opinion in this case. Therefore, we vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court for further consideration and disposition of Appellant’s issues in a manner consistent with Thomas

.

Delivered: June 30, 2021
Do Not Publish