NO. 07-05-0074-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D APRIL 20, 2006

______________________________

In re N.R., a minor

_________________________________ FROM THE 98 TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY; NO. J-19,073; HON. W. JEANNE MEURER, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

________________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. N.R., a juvenile, app e aled from a disposition order dated November 3, 2004, committing her to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC). T he trial court so committed her after conducti ng a hea ring on t he State’ s “Motion to Modify Disposi tion.” The c ourt had previouslyadjudicated that N.R. engaged in delinquent conduc t. The co nduct consisted of her attempt to

steal a car. Thereafter, she was placed on probation. Beli eving that she h ad violated one or more conditions of her probation, the State moved to modify h e r disposition. N.R. adm itted toviolating one of the conditions, and the trial court committed her to TYC. Before us, she questions the trial cou rt’s jurisdiction to o rigi nally ad judicate thatshe en gaged in d elinquent conduct. And, because it purportedly lacke d such2

jurisdiction, the init ial adju dication purporte dly was void as was the ord er confin ing her to TYC. We overrulethe conte ntion an d affirm. According to N.R., the State was obligated to allege in its original petition the value of the vehicle she attempted to steal, and because it did not, the pleading was defective. Additionally, the defectwas a matter that could be raised after her probation wa s revoked and she was committed to TYC, she continues. Final ly, she relies upon Peoples v. State , 566 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) to support each contention. That case is inapposite, however

. Peoples dealt wi th an actual criminal prosecution and the allegations needed to render an indictment valid. Yet, a proceedi ng to determine whether a juvenile engaged in delinqu ent condu ct ( e.g. like the one here ) is not f ully cri minal bu t also ci vil. In
re A.I., 82 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Tex. App.–Austin 2002, pet. den ied). Moreover, the pleading
s tandards in cases like those at bar are less stringen t than those applicable in an ac tua l criminal prosecut ion. In re J.B. M. , 157 S.W.3d 823, 825 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). Indeed, the State need only allege, wi th reasonable particularity, the time, place, and
manner of the acts involved and the penal law or standard of conduct allegedly violated. T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . §53.04(d ) (Vernon 2002). A nd, if the ac ts and penal law involved relate to the attempt

to en gage in a particular criminal act, the State need only aver “the elementsof a[] criminal attempt offense[], and need not allege the constituent elements of the unde rlying offense.” In re J.B. M. , 157 S.W. 3d at 825

. Here, the State asserted through its original petition that N.R. engaged in delinquent conduct on January 27, 2003 . . . by

then and there wi th the specific intent to commit the offense of theft of a motor vehicle, without the consent of the owner, Cinthia Venezio, did an act which amounted to more than mere prepa ration th at3

intended but failed to effect the co m mission of the offense by breaking the steering column of said motor vehicle. As can be seen, the underlying acts and pen al offense concerned an attempt to commit t heft, as o pposed to

actual t heft. See T EX . P EN . C ODE A NN . § 15.01(a) (Vernon 2003) (defining one engaged in crimi nal attem pt as a pe rson who , with specific intent to commit
an offense, does an act amounting to more tha n mere pr eparatio n that ten ds but fai ls to effect the commission of the offense intended). Thus, the State need only have alleged the elementsof attempt, not the elements of theft, such as the value of the object to be stolen. Finally, the allegations it did aver were of sufficient particularity to reasonably afford N.R. notice of the time, place and manner of the acts she undertook and the penal laws she allegedly transgressed. It need not have complied with Peoples

. Accordingly, we affirm the “Orde r Mo dif ying Probation Dispositional [sic] Order of Commitmen t to the T exas Yo uth Commi ssion.”

Brian Quinn Chief Justice