the youth had been adjudicated under § 54.03 of the Family Code, consideration of the adjudication for enhancement purposes must still comport with various subsections of § 12.42, and, one of those subsections was and is that which prohibits the use of a state jail felony for purposes of an enhancement, i.e. § 12.42(e). Interpreting the statute otherwise would lead to an end more onerous for youths than adults. If the State were correct, then in those situations where the accused was an adult when the state jail felony occurred, the latter could not be used for enhancement purposes. However, if the identical state jail felony were committed when the accused was a minor, then it could be used. That is a non-sensical result. Weightman v. State, 975 S.W.2d 621, 623-24 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). We opt not to impute to the legislature an
recognizing the legal concept that when interpreting a statute it is presumed that the legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result recognizing that when interpreting a statute a courts inquiry begins with the text holding that when interpreting statute court must avoid a conclusion that  is not supported when construing every part or section of the statute and would yield an absurd result recognizing that the absurdity of the result is a factor to consider when interpreting a statute holding that we are to apply the legislative intent underlying a statute and to construe the statute in such a way as to prevent absurdity