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

PER CURIAM.

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 criminal proceedings. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 54.02(a). 
Bell - 2

Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty and was placed on six years of deferred adjudication 

community supervision.

In 2015, Appellant’s community supervision was revoked and he was adjudicated 

guilty. In his 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 [1st

Dist.] 2016).

The State filed a petition for discretionary review in which it contended, among 

other things,1 that the court 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 considered it, we vacated the 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 these additional grounds.
Bell - 3

On remand, the court of appeals concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider 

Appellant’s Moon challenge. Bell v. State, 569 S.W.3d 241, 247 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

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 challenge 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. Crim. 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