Background
Juan Alvarez Grady was adjudicated delinquent for nine counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The juvenile court imposed a 12-year determinate sentence, probated for 10 years. After Grady aged out of the juvenile system, the case was transferred to an adult district court so he could remain on community supervision.
The adult court later revoked Grady’s community supervision and imposed a 10-year prison sentence on each count. It ordered the sentences on the first eight counts to run concurrently but ordered the ninth sentence to run consecutively. Grady challenged that cumulation order, the numbering of the counts, and three categories of court costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Court of Appeals held that the adult court lacked authority under Texas Penal Code section 3.03(b)(2-a) to stack the ninth sentence. A juvenile adjudication is not a criminal conviction unless a statute expressly provides otherwise, and the court found no statute or case authorizing a probated determinate-sentence adjudication—later transferred to and revoked by an adult court—to be treated as a conviction for purposes of stacking sentences. The court modified the judgment on Count IX to require that sentence to run concurrently with the others.
The court rejected Grady’s request to renumber Counts V through IX or remand for resentencing because the record established that the nine adjudicated counts, and no others, were transferred to the adult court. It also modified the bill of costs by reducing the state consolidated-cost fee from $185 to $133, deleting the $250 DNA-testing fee, and reducing the courthouse-security fee to $5. The judgments on Counts I through VIII were affirmed, and the judgment on Count IX was affirmed as modified.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile adjudication does not qualify as a conviction for sentence stacking under Penal Code section 3.03 unless applicable law expressly says otherwise.
- An adult court revoking community supervision after transfer of a juvenile case may impose imprisonment, but it does not thereby convict the defendant of the adjudicated offenses.
- Court costs must be supported by the statutes applicable to the offense dates, and an appellate court may directly correct an erroneous bill of costs.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the use of consecutive sentences after a determinate juvenile sentence is transferred to adult court and later revoked. Even for offenses that ordinarily permit stacking after criminal convictions, the statutory distinction between a juvenile adjudication and a conviction remains controlling.
The opinion also underscores that courts must apply the cost statutes in effect when the offenses occurred and must separately determine whether a juvenile adjudication satisfies each statute’s definition of a conviction.