Court Opinion

ID: 9674299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:26:16.960067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.810146
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
REAVLEY, Justice.
Respondent argues on rehearing that the court’s order is a deprivation of due process for Johnny Hernandez.
We have simply held that if this juvenile is financially able to do so, he must pay, or give security for, the costs of his appeal. We have disapproved the holding of Lee v. McKay (Tex.Civ.App.1967) 414 S.W.2d 956, writ dism. w. o. j., and held that neither the juvenile nor his parents come within Article 2276, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.
It is agreed here that Johnny Hernandez has been represented by attorneys at every stage. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals states that the trial court sustained the contest of the pauper’s oath. We must presume that the juvenile can pay the reporter and clerk. Therefore, we find no question of fairness or due process raised by the facts before us.
The Court of Civil Appeals has issued its mandamus to the reporter and clerk without regard to the ability to pay of the juvenile and his parents. We hold this action to be contrary to the law and order it rescinded. Our order does not foreclose further proceeding, by appeal or other method of review, embracing Johnny Hernandez’s right of appeal without payment of costs if the record there were to be as stated by respondent’s attorney when he says in his motion “that the statement of facts on the contest to the ‘pauper’s oath’ reflects beyond any doubt that the Hernandez family are indigent.”
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Dissenting Opinion by POPE, J., in which SMITH and STEAKLEY, JJ., join.
Concurring Opinion by GREENHILL, J., in which McGEE, J., joins.