### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00413- CV

In t he M at te r of A . B.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-22 ,413 , HO NORAB LE ALLISON B ENESCH, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A.B . appea ls from his adjudication as a delinquent based on the offe nse of c riminal trespass. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.05 (West Supp. 2004-05). In his only issue, A.B . contends that the district court e rre d by denying his plea

to the jurisdiction. W e af firm the district cou rt ’s decision. A.B . stipulated that he intentionally and knowing ly enter ed the pre mises of a junior high school on Marc h 23, 2004, without permission from its principal, and af ter having pr ior notice that entry was for bidden. The State char g ed A.B . with criminal trespa ss. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 30.05 (West Supp. 2004-05). The district court held an adjudica tion hearing , wher e A.B . filed a plea to the jurisdiction and moved for dismiss al. The dist rict court denied A.B.’s moti on. After a trial on the merits, the district cour t found that A.B
. had committed c riminal trespass, a djudicated him de lin qu e nt, and

pla c e d h im o n p ro batio n in his mot he r’ s c us tod

y fo r n ine months
.2 I n h is s ole iss ue on a

pp e a l, A. B
. c on te nd s that th e dis tr ic t c ou rt e rr e d in de nyinghis plea to the jurisdiction. A plea to the jurisdiction challeng es the dist rict court’s authority to hear a
case . Bland Indep

. Sch. Dist. v. Blue , 3 4 S. W.3 d 5 47 , 5 54 (T e x. 20 00 ). B e c a us e a c ha lle ng e to
s u b j ec t matter jurisdiction poses a que stion of law, we r eview de novo th e d e n ia l o f a p le a to the jurisdiction. Texas De

p’t of Parks &W

ildlif e v. M iranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). A.B . argues tha

t t h e d is trict court lac ked jurisdiction over him bec ause he should have b e e n c h ar g e d u n d e r a mo r e s p e c if ic s tatute w it

h a le s s s e v e r e p un is h me nt rang e. Com pa re T e x. Educ . Co de Ann. § 3 7. 10 7 ( Wes t 19 96 ) ( de fi nin g tr e sp a ss o n s c ho ol gro un ds a s a Cla ss C misdemeanor) , with Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 30.05 ( West S upp. 2005) (de fining criminal trespa ss as Class B misdemea

nor). A.B . rea sons that criminal tresp ass under the pena l code a

nd trespass on school g rounds under

the educ ation code a

re in p ar i m ate ria
. B e c a u s e th e d o c tr in e o f in pa ri materia require s that the specia l provision prevail over the g ener al, A.B . urg es t h at t h e S t ate was require d to char g e him under the specia l statute for trespass on s chool g rounds. The district c ourt does not have jurisdiction over a c harg e of tre spass on school g rounds. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.04(a) (West 2002).

Statutes are in p ar i m ate ria if, amongother things, they have the same objec t or purpose. Che ne

yv . S tate , 75 5 S.W. 2d 12 3, 12 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 88 ). Statut e s in p ar i m ate ria
are c on str ue d to g e the r, if

po ssi ble , to g ive e ff

e c t to bo th. Te x. Go v’ t Cod e Ann. § 31 1. 02 6 ( Wes t 19 98 ); Cheney , 75 5 S. W.2 d at 12 7. Al te rn a tiv e ly , if the statut e s a

re ir re c on c ila ble , th e n th e sp e c if

ic statut e pr e va ils ov e r the g e ne ra l sta tut e . Te x. Go v’ t Co de Ann. § 3 11 .0 26 ; Cheney , 755 S.W .2d at 127.3 Th is c ourt

re c e ntl y a dd re sse d th e iss ue of whe the r t he e du c a tio n c od e tr e sp a ss pr ov isi on is in pa ri m ate ria with the penal c ode cr iminal trespass provision. In t he Matter of J.M .R. , 149 S.W .3d 289 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet. h.). I n J.M.R. we he ld that these statutes ar e not in p ar i m ate ria , that the S tate could char g e the juvenile under either statute, a nd that the district court had jurisdiction over the alleg ation of cr iminal trespass ag ainst t h e j u venile. Id. a t 29 1. B e c a us e J.M.R. is indi s ti n g u is h a

b le f r o m t h e in s ta n t c a s e , it c o n tr o ls , an d

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id

n o t e r r by denying A .B.’ s plea on the jurisdiction.

We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: June 16, 2005