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

NO. 03-04-00001- CV

In th e Mat ter o f

J. G.

FR OM T HE 2 7T H D IS T R IC T C OU R T OF BE L L C OU N T Y, NO. 200,05 9-C, HO NORAB LE EDWARD S. JOH NSO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th is a pp e a l ari se s f

ro m a juv e nil e a dju dic a tio n for the of fe ns e of a ssa ult wi th b od ily inj ur y on a fa mil y me mbe r. Ap pe lla

nt, a juv e nil e , p le a de d tr

ue to c omm itt inga ssa

ult wi th b od ily inj ur y on a fa

mil y me mbe r and ple a de d tr ue to the a lle g a tio n that sh e ha d be e n p revi ou sly adjudicate d for th e s am e offe nse. See T e x. Pe n . Co d e A n n . § 2 2
. 0 1 ( We s t S u p p . 2 0 0 4
- 0 5 ) ; T e x. F am. C od e Ann. § 5 4. 03 (We st Su pp . 2 00 4- 05 ). Ne ith e r t

he or a l no r wri tten

jud g me nt e xpre ssl y char acte rized appellant’s a djudication as beingfor e ither felony or misdemeanor conduct. Appe llant urg es that, bec ause the family code prohibits enhancinga juvenile’ s subsequent assa ult adjudication to a felony , the court err ed by construing her offe nse as a felony
. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.13 (West Supp. 2004-05). We refor m the judgme nt to reflec t that appellant’s a djudic at i o n wa s for a misdemeanor of

fense and af

firm the judg ment as re formed.2 DI SCU SSIO N During the admonishment portion of appe llant’s sentenc ing he aring , the cour t stated that, “bec ause [appellant ha d] a prio r j u v enil e adjudica tion for family

violence,” it believed appellant’ s conduct c onstitut ed a f elony pursuant to family

code section 51.13(b)( 1). See id. (prior adjudication of c hild may be used in subseque nt proce edingto wh i ch ch ild is a party ). Appe llant ob je c te d, ur g ingtha

t the p e na l c od e e nh anc e me nt p ro vis ion s d o n ot a pp ly to j uv e nil e s b e c a

us e
se c tio n 2 2.01 di scu ss e s “ e nh anc e me nt” on ly in t e rm s o f “ c on vic tio ns ,” wh ic h d e sc ri be on ly a du lt conduct. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.01. The court ove rruled he r objec tion.

Ultimately , the cour

t found that the evide nce suppor t ed t h e m ater ial alleg ations contained in the State’ s petition and tha t ap p el l ant had e ng ag ed in delinquent conduc t. The cour t
s en t en ce d ap p el l an tt o o n e y ea r o f p ro b at i o n i n cl u d i n g s i x we ek s o f b o o tca mp . Ini t s o ra l ru l i n g, the cour t did not mention appellant’s prior adjudication nor did it cha rac terize her instant off

ense a s a fe lony . I n its wr itten judg ment, the cour t stated that appe llant’s adjudication wa s for a subsequent of fe ns e of a ssa ult wi th b od ily

inj ur y on a fa mil y me mbe r, but di d n ot e xpre ssl y state that th e of

fe ns e
w a s a d j u d i c a t e d a s a f e l o n y. Ap pe lla nt a rgue s th a t, a s a

matte r o f l aw, sh e c ann ot b e c on sid e re d a “ de fe nd ant” wi th
a pr e vio us “ c on vic tio n” be caus e she is a juv e nil e . A c c or din g ly , s he c on te nd s th a t th e e vid e nc e is leg ally insufficient to support an a djudication for f elony assault u n d er pe nal code section 22.01, which re fer s only

to enhanc ing the sentenc es of pr eviously convicted de fenda

nts. See id. Th e State ag ree s with appellant’s interpr etation o f t h e penal code but maintains that no re form is nee ded3

beca use, as wr itten, the judgme nt doe s not enhanc e appe llant’s adjudication to a f elony , but instead implies that it is a misdemeanor adjudication. We hold that the offense was a misdemeanor, not a felony
. Under the family

code, a juvenile’ s prior adjudication for assault ag ainst a family member ma

y not be used as a prior conviction. SeeTe x. F am. C od e Ann. § 51. 13 (a ). Thus , a pp e lla nt h a s n o p ri or

c on vic tio n th a t w ou ld require her se cond assa

ult to be enhanc ed fr om a misdemeanor to a felony under the penal c ode. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 22.01( b)(2)
.

We refor m the writt en j udg ment of the c ourt; the rele vant portion of the judg ment
s h o u l d r e a d , “ T h e C o u rt f

i n d s t h a t t h e J u v e n i l e - R e s p o n d e n tw a s b o r no nth e 1 2 thd ay o f

F e b r u ar y, 1990 , an d e n g a g e d in d e li n qu e n t c o n d

u c t, b e y o n d

a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t, in th a t t h e s a id Ju v e n ileRespondent did, as alleg ed in par ag raph Vof t h e State’s Or igina l Petiti on Alleg ing D elinquent Conduct, commit the misdemeanor off ense of Assault with B odily

Injury on a F amily

Member a s define d in the Texas Penal Code.”
CO NC LU SION

Appellant’s sing le issue is sustained, and, a s ref ormed, the judg ment is affirme d.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Reforme d and, as Ref

ormed, Af

firmed Filed: Oc tober 6, 2005