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

NO. 03-04-00319- CV

In the Matte r of B. S . A.

F ROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAY S COUNTY NO. 3167, H ONO RAB LE HO WARD S. WARNER, II, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
B .S. A. a pp e a ls f ro m hi s a dju dic a tio n a s d e lin qu e nt b a se d o n the un de rl yingof fe ns e of indece ncy with a child by contac t. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 21.11 (West 2003). After a plea of “not true ,” appe llant was adjudicate d delinquent by a jury and plac ed on community supervision. We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
Bac kgr ound On Dec ember 15, 2002, Detec tive Sam Stock, Hay s County Sheriff’ s O ff i ce , was dis patc he d to a

ho me in t

he c ounty to i nv e sti g a te a

re po rt of a se xua l a ssa

ult c omm itt e d a g a ins t a child. Stock interviewe d sever al people at the home. Stock lear ned that appellant had been sta ying in the ho m e fo r s ev eral months because of trouble at his own home. Stock learne d that S.P., t he complainant, first re ported the inc ident to her stepmother . Stock did not intervie w the complaina nt
a t the ho me . Ins te a d, De te c tiv e Jer i Skr oc ki, a lso of the Ha y s County

She ri ff ’s Of fi c e , a rr ang e d to2

have S.P. interviewe d by a fore nsic interviewe r at the San Mar cos Children’s Advoc acy Center on Dec ember 1 8 , 2 002. After observingthe interview , Skrocki deter mined that she had suf

ficient inf or matio n to arr e st a

pp e lla nt f or the of fe ns e of ind e c e nc y

wi th a c hil d b y c on ta c t. A

pp e lla nt, ho we ve r, ha d r

un awa y , wa s not atte nd ing sc ho ol, and so wa s d if fi c ult to l oc a te . H e wa s e ve ntu a lly detained in Ma

y 2003. S.P. te sti fi e d that she liv e d with he r s te pmo the r, he r f a the r a nd he r b ro the r f

or a lmo st two y ear s. She did not know how long a ppellant lived with the family ; he eventually moved out of the ho us e in No ve mbe r 200 2 be c a us e of a dis a g re e me nt o ve r c ho re s. Af te r a pp e lla nt m ov e d o ut, S.P. t o l d her stepmother

that appellant ha d tried to have sex wit h her, spe cifica lly reque sting a

“blow job .” S.P. sa id t

ha t on on e oc c a sio n, sh e we nt t o a pp e lla nt’ s ro om and g ave him

a ba c k a nd c he st
ma ssa g e . Tw o day s af

te r the ma ssa g e inc ide nt she sa id that app e lla nt atte mpt e d to ins e rt

his pe nis int o h e r v a g ina , th a t he tou c he d he r wit h his pe nis in he r va g ina , a nd he sto pp e d b e c a

us e sh e tol d h im to stop and beca

use his penis “would not fit.” In three issues on appea l, appellant conte nds that (1) the pet i t i o n fo r adjudication improperly

fails to alleg e the penal law violated by

appellant’ s acts; (2) the re is no evide nce to pr ove appellant’ s acts constit uted delinquent conduct; and, ( 3) the c ourt’s cha rg e er roneously relieve d the State of its burd e n to pr ov e a

pp e lla nt’ s a c ts c on sti tut e d d e lin qu e nt c on du c t.
Discussion In his first issue, appellant asse rts that he was de nied due pr ocess of law bec ause the pe tit ion fo r a dju dic a tio n w a s in a de qu a te . H e c on te nd s th a t it is m and a tor

y fo r t he pe tit ion to s tateAppellant did not br ing the se objec tions at trial under e ither civil proce dures f or cha lleng ing 1 a petiti on or cr iminal procedur es for challeng ing a

n indictment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91; Tex. R . App. P. 3 3. 1; T e x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt . 1 .1 4( b) (We st 2 00 5) ; se e Ro dr igu e z v . S tate , 799 S.W .2d 301, 302-03 (Tex
. Crim. App. 1990) (must object to defe ct i n form or substanc e of indictment be fore trial commenc es or waive err or on appea l). Neve rtheless, in the interest of justice, we will consider the iss ue on

the me ri ts. 3 the penal law allege dly violated, which this one fa iled to do. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 53.04( d)(1) (West 2002). 1 T h e T ex as Fa m i l y C o d e gov ern s p et i t i o n s fo r ad j u d i ca t i o n i n a ju v en i l e p ro ce ed i n g. L.G .R . v . S

tate , 72 4 S.W. 2d 77 5, 77 6 (T e x . 198 7) ; In re B.P.H

. , 8 3 S. W. 3 d

4 0 0 , 4 0 5 ( T e x. App.—For

t Worth 2002, no pet.). The petition must state “with rea sonable particularity the time, place , and manne r of the a cts alleg ed and the penal law or standard of conduct alleg edly violated by the ac ts.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 53.04( d)(1)
. A j u v en i l e h as t he rig ht to the essentials of due p ro ce ss and fa ir treatment. L.G.R. , 7 75 S.W. 2d a t 77 6; B.P.H. , 8 3 S
. W
. 3 d a t4 0 5
. D u e p ro c e ss require s that a juvenile must be informed of the specific alleg ations ag ainst him. In reGa ult , 387 U. S. 1, 33 (1 96 7)
. Th is sta nd ard is le ss str ing e nt tha n that a pp lic a ble to cri mi nal in di ctme nts , howeve r. In re A.B. , 86 8 S.W. 2d 93 8, 94 0 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 19 94 , no wr it) ; M.A.V., J r. v. W ebb County Court at L aw , 8 4 2 S. W. 2 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 5 ( T e x. Ap p . — Sa nA n to n io 1 9 9 2 , w r it

denied)
. The char g e need only

be re asonable and def

inite. M.A.V. , 8 42 S.W. 2d a t 74 5; Ro bin so n v . S

tate , 204 S.W .2d 981, 982 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1947, no writ).

Although the family code say s that the petition must state “the penal law or standar d of conduc t alleg edly

violated by

th e ac t s,” ca ses have held that if the pe tition allege s all of the elements of an offe nse, omission of an express ref ere nce to the penal code se ction is not fatal. SeeAlthough J .R .C. involved a petiti on to transfe r jurisdiction from the juvenile c ourt to district 2 c ourt rathe r t ha n a n a dju dic a tio n, the c ourt was con st ru ingthe fa mil y c od e se c tio n at is su e in t his case . In reJ

.R .C. , 551 S.W .2d 748, 754 (construingTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 53.04( d)(1) ). 4 In reJ .R .C. , 5 51 S.W. 2d 74 8, 75 4 ( Te x. Civ . App .— Te xar ka na 19 77 , w ri t r e f’ d n .r .e .) ; In reP. B. C. , 538 S.W .2d 448, 450-51 (Te x . Civ. App.—El Paso 1976, no writ). I f the State e rrs in its citation of the pe na l c od e sectio n, the pe tit ion is n ot i nv a lid a te d. Th e e rr or is d isr e g ard e d, and

the juv e nil e stands char g ed with the off ense the elements of which wer e pled. See I n re H.R.A. , 790 S.W .2d 102, 104-05 (Te x . App.—B eaumont 1990, no writ). In the conver se situation, plea ding the citation to the penal law violated may

repa ir a de ficienc y

in pleadingall of t he elements of t he off ense if the penal law citation ena

bles the juvenile t o discern e ach of the eleme nts of the offe nse. Se e C.F . v . S tate , 89 7 S.W.2 d 464 , 471 (T e x. Ap p. —E l Paso 19 95 , n o w ri t) ; se e ge ne ra lly Robert O. Da wson, Texas J uvenile L aw 123 ( 6th ed. 2004); 29 Thomas S . Morg an & Har old C. Gaither, Jr., Tex as Prac tice: J uvenile L aw & Practice § 102 (1999).

J .R .C. analy

zes a petition simi lar to the one at i ssue i n this case . The pe tition s tated 2 that J .R.C. “did intentionally and knowing ly

cause the death of W C C by strang ling he r by means unkn o wn at this tim e.” 551 S.W.2d at 754. The pe tition di d not state the par ticular pe nal code se ction violated. Id . The c ourt compar ed the languag e of the petition to the lang uag e of the the pen al code se ction definingthe offe nse of murde r. SeeTe x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 1 9. 02 (We st 2003). I t held that the petition de scribed the standar d of conduc t violated and it was not nec essar y to desig nate the se ction of the pe nal code which conde mns such conduct. Id.B y

c omp ari so n, a

c ri min a l in dic tme nt whi ch tr ack s th e langua g e of a c ri min a l st a tut e is 3 g ener ally sufficie nt to alleg e an of fense and to provide a

defe ndant with notice. State v. Edmond, 933 S.W .2d 120, 127-28 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996). 5 In this c ase, the penal c ode violation underly ing the adjudication wa s the offe nse of ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d b y c on ta c t: A per son commits an offense if, with a child young er tha n 17 y ear s and not the person’ s spouse, whethe r the c hild is of the same or opposite sex, the person: (1 ) e ng a g e s in

se xua l c on ta c t w iththe c hil d o r c a us e s th e c hil d t o eng a g e in sexual contact; . . . .
Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 2 1. 11 (a )( 1) (We st 2 00 3) . T he pe tit ion in t his c a se a lle g e d th a t a

pp e lla nt: [e] ng ag ed in Delinquent Conduct within the provisions of S ection 51.03, Title 3 of the F amil y

Cod e of Te xas, to w it: On or a bo ut t he 15 th o f DE CEM B ER A. D. , 200 2, in Ha y s Co un ty , T e xas, B.S.A. did then a

nd there , wi t h t h e i n t ent t o arouse or g ratify the sexual de sir e of B .S. A. , int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly e ng a g e in s e xua l c on ta c t w ith S.P. by touching the g enitals of S.P., a child y oung er than 17 y ear s and not the spouse of B .S.A.
Th e pe tit ion

in thi s c a se a lle g e s e a c h e le me nt of the of fe ns e of ind e c e nc y wi th a

c hil d b y c on ta c t, j us t as the pe tition i n J

.R .C. alleg ed ea ch element of m urder
. I t specifie s the t y pe of c ontact involved 3

and the date and

tim e of the of fe ns e . App e lla

nt d oe s n ot i nf

or m us i n wha t way

he wa s una

ble to
asce rtain the off

ense with which he was charg ed or lacke d adequate notice to pre pare his defense
. Appellant conte nds that a petit ion which mere ly alleg es that the c hild eng ag ed in delinquent conduc t beca use he violated a law of the g rade of fe lony would not be suffic ient. See C.F. , 897 S.W .2d atAp pe lla nt a sse rt s th a t the Juve nil e De lin qu e nc y Ac t doe s not und e rt ake to c onvic t and punis h 4 a child for

the commission of a cr ime. S ee De n d y v . W i l son , 179 S.W .2d 269, 272 (Tex. 1944). Howeve r, the c urre nt juvenile ju s t ice c ode wa s enac ted in part to “c ontrol the commission of unlawful a cts by

children” and “to promote the conce pt of punishment for criminal

acts.” SeeT e x. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.01(2)( A), (4) (West 2002) (empha sis added). Ap pe lla nt d oe s n ot chall enge t

he su ff ic ie nc y of the e vid e nc e to s ho w h e c omm itt e d th e a c ts 5 constituting the unde rlying of fense of indec ency

with a child; that is, that the sexual contact with the complainant happe ned as a lleg ed.
6 471. Howeve r, the pe tition in this c ase is not a s vague as is the e x ample of a n overly vague petition g iven in C.F. ; the curr ent petition tra cks the elements of a specific offe nse, is rea sonable a nd definite, and satisfies due proce ss conce rns. We overr ule appe llant’s first issue. Delinquent C

onduct In his second issue, appe llant c ontends that there is no evidenc e to prove a ppellant’s
a c ts c on sti tut e d d e lin qu e nt c on du c t. Ap pe lla nt o nc e a g a in c on te nd s th a t th e pe tit ion is i na de qu a te 4 and that “[p]resumably the delinquent conduct at issue involved the violation of a pena l law . . . .” Appellant ar g ues that the State fa iled to prove that a ppellant’s conduc t v i o l at ed a p enal law
. 5 Appellant re lies on In re D.D

. D.D. , howeve r, dea lt with an adjudication base d on the offe nse of misdemeanor te rror istic threat, which w as not alleg ed in the petition. 101 S.W .3d 695, 697 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). Neither was this offe nse a le sser inclu d ed offe nse of the offe nse that wa s alleg ed in the pleading , felony reta liation. Id . Simi larly , in Os bo rn e v . S tate , the child was a djudicated de linquent based on seduc tion by a promise to mar

ry and “c arna l knowledg e” of a fema le child under ag e twenty five. 343 S.W .2d 467-68 (Tex. A pp.—Amarillo 1961, no writ). The fema le child testified that appellant had not pr omised to ma rry her befor e they

had interc ourse.7

The c ourt held that there was no e vidence that the appe llant committed the offense with which he
was c harg ed. Id
.

In contra st, in thi s case , the State prove d ap p ell ant committed the offe nse of indece ncy with a child, t he offense pled in the petition. Delinquent conduc t is conduct, other than a tra ffic offense , that violates a penal law punis hable by imprisonment or by

confine ment in jail. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 5 1
. 0 3 (a ) (W est Supp. 2005). By provingthe offe nse, the State prove d a vio latio n o f a

pe na l la w. B y de fi nit ion , a

pp e lla nt’ s a c ts c on sti tut e d de lin qu e nt c on du c t. We ov e rr ule appellant’ s second issue. Jury Char

ge In his third issue, a

ppellant contends that the trial court’ s instruction to the jury that

“ [t]he c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e of Ind e c e nc y wi th a Chi ld i s d e lin qu e nt c on du c t” is e rr or be c a us e it relieved the State of its burden to prove that the acts a lleg ed in the petition constituted delinquent conduct. We first a ddress whe ther this issue was pre serve d for r eview.

In order to complain on appea l, a party must make the complaint to the trial cour t by
a tim e ly re qu e st, ob

je c tio n o r m oti on . T e x. R. A pp . P. 33 .1 (a ); se e In reM. D. T. , 153 S.W .3d 285, 28 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 20 04 , n o p e t.) . F un dame nta l e rr or , h ow e ve r, may be ra ise d at any

tim e whether or not a timely

objection was ma de at the tr ial court leve l. In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W .3d 340, 350-51 (Te x . 2003) (f

undamental error “discre dited doctrine” but has bee n applied in juvenile ca ses be c a us e of “ qu a si- c ri min a l” natur e ); R. A. M. v . S tate , 599 S.W .2d 841, 844-45 (Te x . Civ. App.—San Antonio 1980, no writ). Funda mental er ror is an err or ca lculated to injure the rig hts of the appe llantIn In re E.F. , this Court applied Almanza in a juv e n il e c a s e . 9 8 6 S.W .2d 806, 8 0 8 ( T e x. 6 App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied)
. 8 to the ex tent that the appe llant has not had a f air a nd impartial trial. See Ro ss v . S tate , 487 S.W .2d 74 4, 74 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ot tin g v . S tate , 8 S.W. 3d

68 1, 68 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 99 , p e t.
re f’ d, un tim e ly

fi led) ( a pp lyingha

rm ana ly sis fr om Al

ma nz a v . S

tate , 6 8 6 S. W. 2 d

1 5 7 , 1 7 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1984)). 6

Appellant ad m i t s t hat he did not pre serve err or, but contends that the tr ial court
c omm itt e d f

un dame nta l e rr or

be c a us e the jur

y c ha rge i mp rop e rl y

re mov e d th e State ’s burd e n to prove that appellant committed delinquent conduct. The char g e told the jury that to find that the
c hil d ha d e ng a g e d in de lin qu e nt c on du c t, it ha d to fi nd that the c hil d c omm itt e d the of fe ns e with which he was charg ed, indecency with a child. The charg e then told the jury that the commission of the off ense w as delinquent c onduct. I t then went on t o t ra ck the eleme nts of the offe nse of ind e c e nc y wi th a c hil d, and

tol d th e jur

y it h a d to fi nd

tho se e le me nts be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. As discussed in issue two, delinquent conduc t is a violation of a pena l law, other tha n a tra ffic of

fense , punishable by

imprisonment or by

confine ment in jail. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 5 1
. 0 3 (a ). T h e S tate must prove be y ond a re asonable doubt that a child has c ommitt ed such a n offe nse “a

nd there by

eng ag ed in d eli nquent conduc t.” In re B.M

. , 1 S. W. 3 d

2 0 4 , 2 0 6 ( T e x. Ap p. —T yle r 1 99 9, no pe t.) . O nc e the State met th e bu rden of sh ow inga

pe na l c od e vio latio n, it satisfied its burden to prove delinquent conduc t. We overrule a ppellant’s third issue.9 Conclusion We have ove rruled all of appe llant’s issues. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the tria l court’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Apr il 13, 2006