in the Matter of W.D.H.
14-17-00164-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Juvenile appellant (W.D.H.), age 16 at the time of the alleged crimes, was charged with two aggravated robberies, robbery, theft/unauthorized use of a vehicle and the State filed a petition for discretionary transfer to adult criminal court.
- Evidence included victim identifications (photo array and Houston victim), surveillance showing a maroon car, recovery of a BLU phone matching a victim’s description, a stolen maroon Ford Focus, and a BB gun recovered from the car.
- Dr. Michael Fuller (psychiatrist) evaluated appellant and testified appellant was of average to above-average intelligence, coherent, mature, understood consequences, and could assist counsel.
- Juvenile probation officer Patrick Okafor prepared a predisposition report: appellant had school attendance/grade problems, self-reported prior marijuana use, and while detained accrued 26 disciplinary referrals including threats and altercations.
- The juvenile court made written, case-specific findings under Tex. Fam. Code § 54.02(f) (offense against person/property; maturity; records/history; public protection/rehabilitation) and ordered transfer; appellant appealed claiming the findings were legally and factually insufficient and the transfer was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s written findings were sufficiently case-specific to support waiver | Order lacked factual underpinnings supporting each reason for transfer | Order referenced statutory factors and included case-specific facts (two aggravated robberies, stolen car, identifications, expert report) | Affirmed: findings were case-specific and met §54.02(h) requirements |
| Whether evidence supported finding of appellant’s sophistication and maturity | Appellant argued evidence was insufficient to show maturity for adult trial | Cited Dr. Fuller’s evaluation showing average/above-average cognition, insight, and ability to assist counsel | Affirmed: legally and factually sufficient to support maturity finding |
| Whether juvenile’s record/history supported transfer | Appellant noted no prior adjudications or violent history before these offenses | State relied on detention disciplinary record, admission of marijuana use, and severity/series of current allegations | Court discounted reliance on prior history to the extent unsupported, but held transfer need not rest on every factor and overall record sufficed |
| Whether prospects for public protection and rehabilitation supported transfer | Appellant argued no evidence juvenile system couldn’t rehabilitate him or protect public | State relied on severity/series of violent offenses, stolen vehicle, detention conduct, and Probation Dept. testimony that juvenile options were inadequate given age and severity | Affirmed: more than a scintilla supported conclusion that public protection and rehabilitation prospects favored transfer; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (explains appellate sufficiency review and that transfer should be exceptional; trial court must “show its work”)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (juvenile waiver proceedings are "critically important" and must meet due process essentials)
- Moon v. State, 410 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (standards for legal sufficiency review of transfer findings)
- In re K.J., 493 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (juvenile conduct in detention can support transfer factors)
- Matthews v. State, 513 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (example of sufficient case-specific findings supporting waiver)
- In re D.L.N., 930 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) (court must consider §54.02(f) factors but need not find each factor established)