in the Matter of S.L., III
04-17-00087-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- Juvenile S.L., III (age 15 at offense, 16 at hearing) was alleged to have participated in a burglary during which the homeowner was stabbed multiple times; weapons (a ten-inch knife and a 48-inch pointed metal stake) were recovered and the victim suffered serious injuries.
- After a two-day discretionary transfer hearing, the juvenile court waived exclusive juvenile jurisdiction and transferred S.L., III to district court for criminal prosecution under Tex. Fam. Code § 54.02.
- Evidence at the transfer hearing included police chase and video, recorded statements in custody (admissions and laughter about the offense), victim and physician testimony about injuries, weapons recovered, cell-phone/social-media material showing firearms, drug use, and gang associations, and psychological and social evaluations.
- Experts and probation personnel provided mixed views on maturity, amenability to juvenile rehabilitation, and risk; some recommended juvenile commitment, others noted guarded prognosis, substance abuse, oppositional behavior, poor supervision, and limited engagement in counseling.
- The juvenile court issued written findings and additional detailed factual findings addressing the §54.02(f) factors (nature of offense, sophistication/maturity, prior history, and prospects for protection/rehabilitation) and concluded community welfare required criminal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.L., III) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court properly found community welfare requires transfer under Tex. Fam. Code §54.02(a)(3) based on seriousness of offense or background | Court failed to "show its work" as to seriousness and findings insufficient | Juvenile court’s findings were supported by evidence of a violent, armed burglary, serious injuries, flight, admissions, weapons, and social-history evidence | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the offense’s nature supported transfer (offense against a person; deadly weapon; serious injury) | Argues juvenile court did not adequately explain or tie findings to statutory factors | State presented victim, medical, police, and video evidence demonstrating violent, dangerous offense with deadly weapons | Held: offense was against a person and of a serious nature; supports transfer |
| Whether S.L., III had sufficient sophistication/maturity to be tried as an adult | Claims expert and defense evidence showed limited cognitive functioning and inability to assist counsel | State relied on psychological evaluations, magistrate warnings, and behavior (refusing to talk, admissions, understanding of proceedings) showing sufficient maturity | Held: evidence supports finding S.L., III was sufficiently sophisticated and mature for transfer |
| Whether juvenile procedures/services could protect the public and rehabilitate S.L., III | Argues juvenile system could provide structured rehabilitation and supervision; experts and probation recommended juvenile disposition | State emphasized substance abuse, gang associations, poor supervision, limited counseling participation, and short juvenile supervision window (would likely end by age 18–19) | Held: evidence supports finding juvenile procedures/facilities inadequate to protect public and rehabilitate; supports transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (standard of review and requirement that juvenile court "show its work" on §54.02(f) factors)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review principles for fact findings)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (more-than-a-scintilla legal sufficiency standard)
- Faisst v. State, 105 S.W.3d 8 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003) (sufficiency principles applied in juvenile-transfer context)
- C.M. v. State, 884 S.W.2d 562 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994) (great-weight/factual-sufficiency standard for juvenile findings)