Ex Parte N.C., 13-20-00293-CR

Background

N.C., age 14 at the time, was accused of three counts of first‑degree aggravated sexual assault of a child; juvenile magistrate warnings issued in 2008 when he was 17.
State filed a Petition for Determinate Sentencing in March 2009; trial counsel appointed April 2009; N.C. lived in Tennessee and most communication with counsel was by phone.
Pretrial events: counsel sought continuances, N.C. took an unfavorable polygraph, N.C. failed to appear for a November 2010 trial setting and absconded; he was arrested and returned in 2013/2014.
In April 2014 N.C. waived a juvenile transfer hearing and stipulated to probable cause and that the delay in prosecution before his 18th birthday was for reasons beyond the State’s control; juvenile court transferred under Family Code §54.02(j) and case moved to adult court.
N.C. accepted deferred adjudication adult plea; juvenile case dismissed in 2019. He filed an art. 11.072 habeas application in 2020 claiming the transfer was jurisdictionally defective and that trial counsel was ineffective.
The habeas court denied relief, made findings that the transfer complied with §54.02(j) and that counsel’s performance was reasonable; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether juvenile court abused discretion by transferring without setting out sufficient facts	N.C.: transfer order lacked factual findings required to waive jurisdiction	State/Habeas ct.: transfer was under §54.02(j), which does not require case‑specific factual findings; N.C. waived hearing and stipulated	Denied — transfer under §54.02(j) was valid; case‑specific findings not required and stipulations supported transfer
2. Sufficiency of evidence that State could not proceed before N.C.’s 18th birthday	N.C.: insufficient evidence that delay was beyond State’s control or not practicable	State: evidence (stipulation + counsel affidavit) showed N.C. requested continuances, absconded, and lived out of state, making pre‑18 prosecution impracticable	Denied — record (stipulation and counsel’s affidavit) supports finding delay was beyond State’s control
3. Whether juvenile court’s reasons were placed on the record	N.C.: transfer order/record failed to state reasons supporting waiver	State: §54.02(j) requires the statute’s elements, and here the order recited those elements and N.C. stipulated	Denied — order complied with §54.02(j) and the stipulation supplied the factual basis
4. Ineffective assistance of counsel	N.C.: counsel was ineffective for not preventing transfer/prosecution years after he turned 18	State/Habeas ct.: counsel investigated, sought continuances, advised on polygraph and plea, and N.C. absconded; counsel’s decisions were reasonable trial strategy under Strickland	Denied — habeas court’s credibility findings credited counsel’s affidavit; performance not shown deficient and no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Thomas, 623 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (holding §54.02(j) transfers need not include case‑specific factual findings in the order)
Moore v. State, 532 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (discussed by appellant re: purpose of §54.02(j))
Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (earlier case on transfer findings that was later abrogated/limited)
Ex parte White, 506 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (article 11.072 includes deferred adjudication applicants)
Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for habeas review)
Ex parte Mowbray, 943 S.W.2d 461 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (factfinder is exclusive judge of witness credibility in habeas)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)