In re A.M.H.

IN THE MATTER OF A.M.H., A JUVENILE

NO. 12-19-00284-CV

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

April 30, 2020

APPEAL FROM THE 273RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SABINE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A.M.H. appeals the juvenile court's order of discretionary transfer of his case to adult criminal district court. Appellant raises four issues on appeal. We reverse and dismiss.

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2018, Hemphill Police Department Officer Travis Trexler received a call that two children made an outcry of sexual abuse against Appellant, alleging several years of sexual abuse, with the last events occurring on or about September 30, 2017. The children underwent forensic interviews and a sexual assault nurse examination three days after the outcries on July 30, 2018, in which they described the abuse committed against them by Appellant. Appellant was sixteen years old at the time of the most recent abuse, and seventeen years old at the time of the outcries.

Prior to the outcries, Appellant relocated with his family to Georgia. At the time of the outcries in July 2017, Appellant, while in Georgia, had just completed his term of community supervision on another case originating from Sabine County, Texas. A juvenile warrant was issued on September 5, 2018.

There was no further activity on the case until late November 2018 when the authorities contacted Appellant's mother requesting that Appellant return to Texas. Appellant returned to Sabine County on December 4, 2018, and turned himself in at the Sabine County Jail. He was erroneously booked and processed as an adult and bonded out the same day. Appellant then returned to Georgia. First Judicial District Juvenile Probation Department Officer Dan Reeves, who also oversaw Appellant's community supervision on his other case, was not notified of Appellant's return to Texas or the improper processing of his warrant and arrest until December 10.

On January 18, 2019, after Officer Reeves consulted with his supervisor, the Hemphill Police Department, the District Attorney's Office, and the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD), they collectively decided to allow Appellant to remain in Georgia and finish the school year, at which time they would proceed on the matter. Appellant turned eighteen on January 22.

On May 21, the State filed a petition for discretionary transfer in the juvenile court alleging that Appellant committed aggravated sexual assault on the two child victims under the age of fourteen when Appellant was sixteen years of age. Among other requirements in the discretionary transfer statute, the State also alleged that for reasons beyond its control, it was not practicable to proceed prior to Appellant's eighteenth birthday.¹

The trial court held the waiver and transfer hearing on August 7, almost seven months after Appellant's eighteenth birthday. The juvenile court found that there had been no adjudication concerning the alleged offenses, there was probable cause to believe that Appellant committed the offenses, that he was over fourteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age at the time of the offenses, and for reasons beyond the State's control it was not practicable to proceed before Appellant's eighteenth birthday. Therefore, the court waived its exclusive original jurisdiction and ordered the case transferred to criminal district court. Because the juvenile court did not explain the basis for its findings in its order under the relevant statutory factors, Appellant requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the trial court subsequently issued. This appeal followed.

WAIVER OF JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER ORDER

Appellant argues in his fourth issue that the trial court's decision to waive its juvenile jurisdiction and transfer the case to criminal district court was unsupported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. Specifically, in relevant part, Appellant contends that the State failed to satisfy its burden to show that, for reasons beyond its control, it was impracticable to proceed in juvenile court before his eighteenth birthday.

Standard of Review

The transfer of a juvenile offender from a juvenile court to criminal district court for prosecution should be regarded as the exception, not the rule. Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Therefore, the Texas Juvenile Justice Code allows a juvenile court to waive its exclusive original jurisdiction and transfer a child to the appropriate district court or criminal district court only under specific circumstances. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.02 (West 2014). If the court decides to waive its jurisdiction, it must "state specifically its reasons for waiver and certify its action, including the written order and findings of the court." Id. § 54.02(h). The order must contain both the juvenile court's reasons for waiving its jurisdiction and the findings of fact that undergird those reasons. Moon, 451 S.W.3d at 49. In other words, the juvenile court must "show its work." Id.

When reviewing a juvenile court's written order waiving its jurisdiction under Section 54.02, an appellate court must perform a two-step analysis. See id. at 47. First, the court should review the juvenile court's specific findings of fact under "traditional sufficiency of the evidence review." Id. Under a legal sufficiency challenge, we credit evidence favorable to the challenged finding and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder could not reject the evidence. Moon v. State, 410 S.W.3d 366, 371 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013), aff'd, 451 S.W.3d 28. If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the challenge fails. Id. We will not second-guess the factfinder "unless only one inference can be drawn from the evidence." In re J.G., 495 S.W.3d 354, 370 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (quoting Faisst v. State, 105 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, no pet.)). Under a factual sufficiency challenge, we consider all of the evidence presented to determine if the court's finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong or unjust. Moon, 410 S.W.3d at 371. The reviewing court must limit its sufficiency review supporting the transfer order to the facts that the juvenile court expressly relied upon, as required to be explicitly set out in the transfer order. Moon, 451 S.W.3d at 50.

Second, after completing its sufficiency review, the appellate court should consider the juvenile court's ultimate waiver decision under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 47. In doing so, the court should ask whether the juvenile court acted without reference to guiding rules or principles. Id. "In other words, was [the juvenile court's] transfer decision essentially arbitrary,given the evidence on which it was based, or did it represent a reasonably principled application of the legislative criteria?" Id.

Applicable Law

Texas juvenile courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings in cases involving the delinquent conduct of an adult who was a child at the time of the conduct. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.04(a) (West Supp. 2019). Delinquent conduct includes conduct other than a traffic offense that violates a penal law and is punishable by imprisonment or confinement in jail. Id. § 51.03(a) (West Supp. 2019). "Child" includes a person who is ten years of age or older and under seventeen years of age. Id. § 51.02(2)(A) (West Supp. 2019). Delinquency proceedings against minors proceed in juvenile court under the Juvenile Justice Code. See generally id. §§ 51.01-61.107 (West 2014 and West Supp. 2019). As we earlier discussed, a juvenile court may waive its exclusive original jurisdiction under certain conditions and allow transfer of the proceeding to a district court for criminal prosecution. Id. § 54.02(a), (j).

What the State must prove to obtain transfer depends on whether the minor has reached the age of eighteen by the date of the transfer hearing. Matter of A.M., 577 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. filed). "Section 54.02(a) applies where the juvenile is less than eighteen years of age at the time of the transfer hearing," while "Section 54.02(j) applies where the juvenile is eighteen years old at the time of the transfer hearing." Id. (quoting In re D.L.C., No. 06-16-00058-CV, 2017 WL 1055680, at *4 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)).

Once the juvenile turns eighteen, the juvenile court's jurisdiction is limited to either dismissing the case or transferring the case to criminal district court.² See Moore v. State, 532 S.W.3d 400, 404-05 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017); In re N.J.A., 997 S.W.2d 554, 555-56 (Tex. 1999). If the State does not meet its burden under Section 54.02(j), the juvenile court's only option is todismiss the case. See Moore, 532 S.W.3d at 405; Matter of A.M., 577 S.W.3d at 658; N.J.A., 997 S.W.2d at 557.

As applicable here, regarding the transfer of cases where the defendant turns eighteen prior to the transfer hearing, Texas Family Code Section 54.02(j) provides, in pertinent part, that

[t]he juvenile court may waive its exclusive original jurisdiction and transfer a person to the appropriate district court or criminal district court for criminal proceedings if:

(1) the person is 18 years of age or older;

(2) the person was:

. . .

(B) 14 years of age or older and under 17 years of age at the time the person is alleged to have committed . . . a felony of the first degree other than an offense under Section 19.02, Penal Code;

(3) no adjudication concerning the alleged offense has been made or no adjudication hearing concerning the offense has been conducted;

(4) the juvenile court finds from a preponderance of the evidence that:

(A) for a reason beyond the control of the state it was not practicable to proceed in juvenile court before the 18th birthday of the person;

. . . and

(5) the juvenile court determines that there is

...