in the Matter of T.H.
14-15-00927-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 31, 2015Background
- Juvenile (T.H.), born June 2, 1998, was charged in two petitions with first‑degree aggravated robbery occurring April 4, 2015; State moved to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer to criminal court.
- Certification hearing (Sept. 11, 2015): store surveillance video showing robber in red hoodie brandishing a revolver, shot one victim (Hayes) in the leg; victims and witnesses identified T.H. from video and photos; police recovered a bullet fragment and booking photo showed gang‑associated tattoo.
- Juvenile probation record (CRIS) showed prior adjudications (theft/assault, robbery), placements in multiple juvenile facilities, participation in intensive and gang supervision programs, disciplinary writeups, and continued escalation of criminal behavior.
- Probation officer testified T.H. is a high‑ranking Early Boys gang member; mother testified she preferred juvenile disposition and that he benefited from placements; T.H. declined to participate in psychological evaluation.
- Trial court found probable cause and, weighing §54.02(f) factors (offenses against persons, sophistication/maturity, prior record, limited rehabilitative prospects given age), ordered waiver on Oct. 13, 2015; appellant appealed. Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had sufficient information and did not abuse discretion in waiving jurisdiction under Tex. Fam. Code §54.02 | State: evidence (video, IDs, witness testimony, CRIS) established probable cause and §54.02(f) factors supported discretionary waiver | Appellant: (implicit) challenges could include insufficiency or inadequate case‑specific findings and failure of juvenile remedies; counsel concluded no nonfrivolous issue | Court (per Anders brief & record) — waiver supported: juvenile court made case‑specific findings supported by the record; no meritorious appellate issues identified |
| Whether certification/order complied with Moon two‑prong review requirements (sufficient information; principled application of discretion) | State: presentation of evidence and written findings satisfy Moon | Appellant: (implicit) order might be deficient under Moon if findings insufficiently case‑specific | Held: Record contained ample evidence and case‑specific findings; decision not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether counsel complied with Anders procedures for frivolous appeal in juvenile case | Counsel: followed Anders/In re D.A.S.; filed brief, motion to withdraw, and notified client of right to file pro se brief | State: N/A | Held: Anders procedures applicable; counsel certified no arguable grounds and sought leave to withdraw |
| Whether age and statutory limits (juvenile sentencing/release ages) render juvenile rehabilitation infeasible | State: T.H. was 17; limited juvenile detention options and short remaining juvenile jurisdictional period reduce rehabilitative prospects | Appellant: (implicit) argument that juvenile programs could still rehabilitate | Held: Court found age and prior unsuccessful interventions supported conclusion rehabilitation in juvenile system unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (appellate‑counsel obligations when appeal is frivolous)
- Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (two‑prong review for juvenile waiver: sufficiency of information and abuse of discretion; need for case‑specific findings)
- In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998) (Anders procedures apply in juvenile delinquency appeals)
- Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (court of appeals must independently review record when counsel files Anders brief)
- Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requirements for counsel to inform client of right to file pro se briefs and appellate deadlines)