Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Judith Charlton and Cedric Tribble were romantically involved for approximately four years. On April 24, 2002, Charlton gave birth to their son, Cameron. On Sept. 12, 2002, Charlton, Tribble and a representative of the Texas Attorney General’s Office signed an “Agreed Child Support Review Order” pursuant to Chapter 233 of the Texas Family Code. The agreed order found Tribble to be Cameron’s biological father, named Charlton and Tribble joint managing conservators of Cameron, gave Charlton the right to determine Cameron’s primary residence, restricted Cameron’s residence to Dallas County or any contiguous county, established Tribble’s right to standard possession of Cameron under Chapter 153 of the Texas Family Code, and required Tribble to pay child support through the attorney general. The agreed order was filed with the Dallas County district clerk on Sept. 13, 2002 and signed by a child support master on Sept. 19, 2002. Charlton and Tribble did not follow the periods of custody set out in the agreed order. Rather, Tribble visited Cameron almost every day at Charlton’s apartment. In January 2003, Charlton wrote Tribble a letter stating she wanted to move to the Virgin Islands with Cameron. Tribble told Charlton she could move but could not take Cameron. On Feb. 10, 2003, Charlton and Tribble requested the attorney general discontinue child support services. Tribble was attempting to buy a condominium for Chalrton and Cameron to live in, and both parties believed removing the automatic child support deduction from his paycheck would help his credit. Tribble, however, continued to pay child support directly to Charlton. In March 2003, Charlton wrote Tribble another letter saying Tribble was “worthless” and she wanted to move to the Virgin Islands. In May 2003, Charlton told the attorney general she was moving to the Virgin Islands. The attorney general did not tell Charlton that the agreed order was still in place or that she needed to request the agreed order be modified before leaving Dallas. Charlton did not tell Tribble about her plans to move. On June 6, 2003, Tribble went to Charlton’s apartment to visit Cameron. Charlton’s apartment was in total chaos, and she had obviously moved. Charlton called Tribble the next day and said she was in the Virgin Islands. Tribble later returned to Charlton’s apartment with the agreed order and called the police. In July 2003, Tribble traveled to the Virgin Islands to visit Charlton and Cameron. Charlton refused to discuss bringing Cameron back to Texas. When Tribble told Charlton she was violating the agreed order and his rights, Charlton responded that Tribble no longer had any rights to Cameron, because the attorney general had discontinued child support services. Charlton testified that she knew the agreed order gave Tribble custody rights to Cameron but believed the entire agreement had been dismissed when the attorney general discontinued child support services. After returning from the Virgin Islands, Tribble made a written statement with police and charges were filed against Charlton. He also continued his efforts to convince Charlton to return to Texas. At one point, Tribble bought Charlton a plane ticket and requested the warrant for her arrest be lifted so she could return. Charlton did not return to Texas, and Tribble did not see Cameron for six months. Authorities indicted Charlton in October 2003. The indictment alleged that Charlton: “[o]n or about the 7th day of June A.D., 2003 in the County of Dallas and said State, did unlawfully then and there intentionally and knowingly take and retain CAMERON TRIBBLE, a child younger than 18 years, knowing that the taking and retention violated the express terms of a judgment and order of the 330th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, signed SEPTEMBER 12, 2002, disposing of the child’s custody.” On Nov. 24, 2003, the judge of the 330th District Court formally adopted the agreed order with the provision “[t]he Order is adopted by this court expressly noting that [appellant] no longer resides in Dallas County and that this order is subject to further investigation pursuant to provisions of the UCCJEA.” In late 2003, authorities arrested Charlton in the Virgin Islands. Marvis Woods, an investigator for the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office, traveled to the Virgin Islands in December 2003 with a governor’s warrant to escort Charlton back to Texas. According to Woods, a governor’s warrant is issued only when the defendant fights extradition. Charlton testified that she was planning to return to Dallas using the ticket provided by Tribble but was arrested two days before her scheduled flight. She did not knowingly fight extradition but simply followed her lawyer’s advice. The jury found Charlton guilty, and she appealed. HOLDING:Affirmed. Under Texas Penal Code �25.03(a), a person commits the offense of interference with child custody if the person takes or retains a child younger than 18 years of age when the person knows the taking or retention of the child violates the express term of a judgment or court order disposing of the child’s custody. Charlton signed the agreed order on Sept. 12, 2002, and admitted she had knowledge of the substance of the order. The master signed the order on Sept. 19, 2002. Because neither Charlton nor Tribble appealed the order, it became a final order of the district court after the three-day appeal period passed. Charlton also argued that there was no valid order, because the agreed order was not signed within the statutory three-day period set out in �233.024. But the court found that nothing in �233.024 makes an agreed order signed after the three-day period void. Indeed, such a reading of the statute runs directly contrary to its purpose of efficiently providing for the support of children. Accordingly, the court held that the trial court’s failure to sign the agreed order within three days of filing with the district clerk did not make the order void. The court then concluded that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the court order disposing of custody of Charlton’s child was in effect in June 2003 when Charlton took Cameron to live in the Virgin Islands and during the time she remained there with him. Charlton next contended that the evidence was legally insufficient, because the indictment alleged she violated an order signed by the 330th District Court on Sept. 12, 2002, while the evidence showed the judge of that court did not sign the order on that day. A variance, the court stated, occurs when there is a discrepancy between the allegations in the indictment and the proof at trial. A variance must be material in order to render the evidence insufficient to support the verdict. To determine if a variance is material, the court stated that it must consider whether the indictment sufficiently informed Charlton of the charge against her to allow her to adequately prepare a defense and whether the variance would subject Charlton to the risk of being prosecuted again for the same offense. On appeal, the court stated, Charlton did not argue that the Sept. 12, 2002, date in the indictment provided her with insufficient notice of the charges against her or subjected her to the risk of being prosecuted twice for the same offense. In the trial court, Charlton filed a motion to quash the indictment on the basis that no court order was signed on Sept. 12, 2002. She also premised her defense on her belief the order was not in effect after the AG discontinued child support services. Consequently, the court found it to be unlikely that Charlton did not know what court order she was alleged to have violated by taking Cameron to live in the Virgin Islands in June 2003, and her defense was in no way prejudiced by evidence the order was not signed by the judge of the 330th District Court on Sept. 12, 2002. Moreover, the court found no risk that Charlton could be prosecuted for the same offense, because there was only one applicable order prior to June 2003. Accordingly, the court concluded that the variance between the indictment and the proof at trial was immaterial and did not render the evidence insufficient to support the verdict. Charlton finally contended that legally and factually insufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that she knew taking Cameron to the Virgin Islands was a violation of the agreed order. Charlton, the court stated, signed the agreed order that not only provided Tribble with periods during which he was entitled to custody of Cameron but restricted Cameron’s county of residence to Dallas County and contiguous counties. Charlton also knew Tribble would not consent to her moving Cameron to the Virgin Islands. Regardless, in May 2003 Charlton told the attorney general, but not Tribble, that she was moving to the Virgin Islands and then moved, taking Cameron with her. After discovering Charlton and Cameron had moved, Tribble went to the Virgin Islands and told Charlton she was in violation of the agreed order and his rights. Charlton did not voluntarily return to Dallas. Taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Charlton knowingly moved Cameron to the Virgin Islands in violation of the agreed order. OPINION:Thomas, C.J.; Thomas, C.J., and FitzGerald and Francis, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.