Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
IN THE MATTER OF M.A.A.
From the 436th District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2020JUV00120, 2020JUV01099A, 2020JUV00725 Honorable Lisa Jarrett, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 2, 2022
AFFIRMED
Appellant M.A.A. challenges the trial court’s March 10, 2022 order committing her to the
custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). We affirm the trial court’s order.
BACKGROUND
When M.A.A. was sixteen years old, the State alleged in three separate cause numbers that
she had engaged in delinquent conduct that was “an offense against the State of Texas of the Grade
of Felony.” M.A.A. pleaded true to the State’s allegations, and the trial court entered an order of
adjudication and placed her on probation in all three cases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 54.03,
54.04. Because the trial court found that it was in M.A.A.’s best interest to be placed outside her
home while she was on probation, it ordered her into the care, custody, and control of the Chief
Juvenile Probation Officer of Bexar County until her eighteenth birthday. 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
When M.A.A. was seventeen, the State moved to modify that disposition in all three cases.
The State alleged M.A.A. had violated the terms of her probation by “fail[ing] to cooperate fully
and obey all rules of the residential placement facility or foster home where she was placed.” The
State asked the trial court to declare that M.A.A. had “violated a reasonable and lawful order of a
juvenile court” and to modify its previous disposition “in accordance with the provisions of Title
3 of the Texas Family Code,” also known as the Juvenile Justice Code.
On March 8, 2022, the trial court held a hearing to modify its previous disposition via
Zoom. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05. M.A.A., her attorney, her guardian ad litem, and her
father appeared and did not object to holding the hearing virtually. During that hearing, M.A.A.
pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s motions. The trial court then advised M.A.A. on the
record that she had the right to remain silent, the right to cross-examine and confront witnesses,
and the right to an attorney to “provide a defense for [her] and make the State prove the case by
preponderance of the evidence.” The trial court also asked the State to read the allegations against
M.A.A. on the record. After the trial court’s admonition and the reading of the allegations, M.A.A.
confirmed that she wanted to plead true. The trial court accepted M.A.A.’s plea, found the State’s
evidence supported the plea, and found that M.A.A. “was on probation and violated the terms” of
her probation. Importantly, M.A.A. did not complain about any of these admonishments or
challenge the adequacy of her remote signature on the plea paperwork.
After making these findings, the court immediately transitioned to disposition. During that
portion of the hearing, M.A.A.’s probation officer recommended “no disposition for [M.A.A.] and
to be in the care and custody of her father” because “[M.A.A.] has charges pending in the adult
courts, and they have other resources that may be suitable for her needs.” The State acknowledged
that M.A.A. was under investigation for assault of a public servant, but it told the trial court those
allegations had not yet “been referred to the State for prosecution.” The State recommended that
-2- 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
M.A.A. “be placed in the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department” until her nineteenth
birthday. The prosecuting attorney represented that if the trial court committed M.A.A. to TJJD,
the State would “make sure that those charges [under investigation] do not come forward so when
she is released from TJJD, on or before her 19th birthday, she will have a clean slate.”
M.A.A.’s attorney stated that he had informed her about the difference between “no
disposition” and a commitment to TJJD, and he indicated that M.A.A. wanted to be released to her
father and “face adult court, if the adult court system files charges against her.” M.A.A.’s guardian
ad litem confirmed that M.A.A. wanted the court to “find no disposition and let her deal with the
adult case, should it come down.” M.A.A. testified that she understood the options that were
available to the trial court and explained she did not want to be committed to TJJD because she
did not plan “to continue doing bad.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found it was in M.A.A.’s best interest to be
placed outside her home, that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need to
remove her from her home, and that she could not be provided an adequate level of support and
supervision to meet the conditions of probation in her home. Based on those findings, it concluded
that it was in M.A.A.’s best interest and the best interest of the public to commit M.A.A. to TJJD.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
In a single issue, M.A.A. argues she was denied the right to meaningfully participate in the
modification of disposition hearing that resulted in her commitment to TJJD.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
“[A] disposition based on a finding that the child engaged in delinquent conduct that
violates a penal law of this state . . . of the grade of felony may be modified so as to commit the
child to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department[.]” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05(f). To preserve
-3- 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
a complaint about a modified disposition for appellate review, the child generally “must present
the trial court with a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling
desired.” In re J.M.E., No. 04-19-00062-CV, 2020 WL 86212, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
Jan. 8, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). This preservation rule applies to constitutional claims. Id.
Application
M.A.A. first argues that the record does not show she was properly admonished regarding
her rights. She does not dispute that the trial court orally advised her of her rights before it accepted
her plea, and she notes that several written admonishment documents in the clerk’s record appear
to bear her electronic signature. She contends, however, the trial court did not inquire whether
those markings “actually represented [her] intended electronic signature.” She also argues that
even if the electronic signature is hers, “she was not asked what she believed might transpire upon
her signing it,” and she contends the trial court “did not verify [her] understanding that her plea of
true could result in her incarceration until her nineteenth birthday.”
The Texas Family Code requires a trial court conducting a juvenile adjudication hearing to
explain several matters to the child and her parents at the beginning of the hearing. TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 54.03(b). The Family Code does not specifically require similar admonishments in
a hearing to modify a previous adjudication. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05; but see id. § 54.05(g)
(commitment of child to TJJD requires “[a] new finding in compliance with Section 54.03”). We
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nos. 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
IN THE MATTER OF M.A.A.
From the 436th District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2020JUV00120, 2020JUV01099A, 2020JUV00725 Honorable Lisa Jarrett, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: November 2, 2022
AFFIRMED
Appellant M.A.A. challenges the trial court’s March 10, 2022 order committing her to the
custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). We affirm the trial court’s order.
BACKGROUND
When M.A.A. was sixteen years old, the State alleged in three separate cause numbers that
she had engaged in delinquent conduct that was “an offense against the State of Texas of the Grade
of Felony.” M.A.A. pleaded true to the State’s allegations, and the trial court entered an order of
adjudication and placed her on probation in all three cases. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 54.03,
54.04. Because the trial court found that it was in M.A.A.’s best interest to be placed outside her
home while she was on probation, it ordered her into the care, custody, and control of the Chief
Juvenile Probation Officer of Bexar County until her eighteenth birthday. 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
When M.A.A. was seventeen, the State moved to modify that disposition in all three cases.
The State alleged M.A.A. had violated the terms of her probation by “fail[ing] to cooperate fully
and obey all rules of the residential placement facility or foster home where she was placed.” The
State asked the trial court to declare that M.A.A. had “violated a reasonable and lawful order of a
juvenile court” and to modify its previous disposition “in accordance with the provisions of Title
3 of the Texas Family Code,” also known as the Juvenile Justice Code.
On March 8, 2022, the trial court held a hearing to modify its previous disposition via
Zoom. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05. M.A.A., her attorney, her guardian ad litem, and her
father appeared and did not object to holding the hearing virtually. During that hearing, M.A.A.
pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s motions. The trial court then advised M.A.A. on the
record that she had the right to remain silent, the right to cross-examine and confront witnesses,
and the right to an attorney to “provide a defense for [her] and make the State prove the case by
preponderance of the evidence.” The trial court also asked the State to read the allegations against
M.A.A. on the record. After the trial court’s admonition and the reading of the allegations, M.A.A.
confirmed that she wanted to plead true. The trial court accepted M.A.A.’s plea, found the State’s
evidence supported the plea, and found that M.A.A. “was on probation and violated the terms” of
her probation. Importantly, M.A.A. did not complain about any of these admonishments or
challenge the adequacy of her remote signature on the plea paperwork.
After making these findings, the court immediately transitioned to disposition. During that
portion of the hearing, M.A.A.’s probation officer recommended “no disposition for [M.A.A.] and
to be in the care and custody of her father” because “[M.A.A.] has charges pending in the adult
courts, and they have other resources that may be suitable for her needs.” The State acknowledged
that M.A.A. was under investigation for assault of a public servant, but it told the trial court those
allegations had not yet “been referred to the State for prosecution.” The State recommended that
-2- 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
M.A.A. “be placed in the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department” until her nineteenth
birthday. The prosecuting attorney represented that if the trial court committed M.A.A. to TJJD,
the State would “make sure that those charges [under investigation] do not come forward so when
she is released from TJJD, on or before her 19th birthday, she will have a clean slate.”
M.A.A.’s attorney stated that he had informed her about the difference between “no
disposition” and a commitment to TJJD, and he indicated that M.A.A. wanted to be released to her
father and “face adult court, if the adult court system files charges against her.” M.A.A.’s guardian
ad litem confirmed that M.A.A. wanted the court to “find no disposition and let her deal with the
adult case, should it come down.” M.A.A. testified that she understood the options that were
available to the trial court and explained she did not want to be committed to TJJD because she
did not plan “to continue doing bad.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found it was in M.A.A.’s best interest to be
placed outside her home, that reasonable efforts had been made to prevent or eliminate the need to
remove her from her home, and that she could not be provided an adequate level of support and
supervision to meet the conditions of probation in her home. Based on those findings, it concluded
that it was in M.A.A.’s best interest and the best interest of the public to commit M.A.A. to TJJD.
This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
In a single issue, M.A.A. argues she was denied the right to meaningfully participate in the
modification of disposition hearing that resulted in her commitment to TJJD.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
“[A] disposition based on a finding that the child engaged in delinquent conduct that
violates a penal law of this state . . . of the grade of felony may be modified so as to commit the
child to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department[.]” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05(f). To preserve
-3- 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
a complaint about a modified disposition for appellate review, the child generally “must present
the trial court with a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling
desired.” In re J.M.E., No. 04-19-00062-CV, 2020 WL 86212, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
Jan. 8, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). This preservation rule applies to constitutional claims. Id.
Application
M.A.A. first argues that the record does not show she was properly admonished regarding
her rights. She does not dispute that the trial court orally advised her of her rights before it accepted
her plea, and she notes that several written admonishment documents in the clerk’s record appear
to bear her electronic signature. She contends, however, the trial court did not inquire whether
those markings “actually represented [her] intended electronic signature.” She also argues that
even if the electronic signature is hers, “she was not asked what she believed might transpire upon
her signing it,” and she contends the trial court “did not verify [her] understanding that her plea of
true could result in her incarceration until her nineteenth birthday.”
The Texas Family Code requires a trial court conducting a juvenile adjudication hearing to
explain several matters to the child and her parents at the beginning of the hearing. TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 54.03(b). The Family Code does not specifically require similar admonishments in
a hearing to modify a previous adjudication. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05; but see id. § 54.05(g)
(commitment of child to TJJD requires “[a] new finding in compliance with Section 54.03”). We
will assume, without deciding, that the admonishments that are statutorily required during an initial
adjudication hearing are also required at a subsequent modification hearing. Compare TEX. FAM.
CODE § 54.03, with TEX. FAM. CODE § 54.05. The admonishments required by section 54.03
include “the allegations made against the child,” “the nature and possible consequences of the
proceedings,” “the child’s privilege against self-incrimination,” and the child’s right to trial, the
-4- 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
confrontation of witnesses, and representation by counsel. Id. The Family Code also provides,
however:
In order to preserve for appellate or collateral review the failure of the court to provide the child the explanation required by Subsection (b), the attorney for the child must comply with Rule 33.1, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, before testimony begins or, if the adjudication is uncontested, before the child pleads to the petition or agrees to a stipulation of evidence.
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.03(i). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 requires a complainant
to show that she made a timely, specific objection below and that she obtained a ruling on her
objection. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a). Here, there is nothing in the record showing that M.A.A.
objected to the trial court’s oral and written admonishments at either the initial adjudication
hearing or the modification hearing. Accordingly, she has not preserved that complaint for our
review. TEX. FAM. CODE § 54.03(i); TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).
Next, M.A.A. challenges the trial court’s decision to hold a virtual hearing on the State’s
motions to modify, arguing that she had a constitutional right to be physically present before the
court. As support for this proposition, she cites article 27.18 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure. Article 27.18 provides that in an adult criminal proceeding, a trial court may accept a
defendant’s plea or waiver of a defendant’s rights by videoconference, but only if both the
defendant and the State file “written consent to the use of videoconference.” TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 27.18(a)(1). She also cites an opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
holding that the Texas Supreme Court’s emergency orders arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic
do not “purport to authorize courts to modify substantive rights.” In re State ex rel. Ogg, 618
S.W.3d 361, 364–66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021).
M.A.A. did not raise any constitutional claims below. See In re E.A.P., No. 04-08-00503-
CV, 2009 WL 618463, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 11, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op)
(holding juvenile waived constitutional complaint by failing to assert it before adjudication
-5- 04-22-00186-CV, 04-22-00187-CV, 04-22-00188-CV
hearing). She also did not object to the virtual hearing, argue that a virtual hearing would deprive
her of any substantial right, or assert that the trial court was bound by any statutory requirements
that apply to proceedings in adult criminal cases. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); In re E.A.P., 2009 WL
618463, at *1. We conclude M.A.A. has not preserved this complaint for our review. See, e.g., In
re D.T.M., 932 S.W.2d 647, 652 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).
Having concluded that M.A.A.’s arguments are not preserved for our review, we overrule
her sole issue.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s March 10, 2022 order committing M.A.A. to the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department.
Beth Watkins, Justice
-6-