Reed, Jamal Anton
WR-40,571-02
Tex. App.Jul 6, 2015Background
- Applicant Jamal Anton Reed, certified from juvenile court to adult criminal court in 1994, was convicted in 1995 of aggravated robbery and aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 80 years; appeal affirmed in 2004.
- Reed filed an Article 11.07 habeas application arguing the juvenile waiver/certification was unlawful and raised newly obtained/exculpatory evidence (psychological report and later DNA testing).
- Reed alleges numerous defects in the waiver process: no specific written reasons certified, improper application of §54.02(f) factors (sophistication/maturity, rehabilitation/protection of public), failure to obtain/consider proper diagnostic material, and lack of personal service of juvenile summons.
- Reed emphasizes Dr. Burns’s psychological evaluation did not support findings of sophistication/maturity and suggested conduct/behavioral disorders rather than mature culpability.
- DNA testing from 1994 and a 2012 lab report show mixed or excluded profiles: earlier testing eliminated Reed as semen donor on a pillowcase; 2012 testing found the sperm fraction of oral swabs was a mixture in which Reed and others could not be excluded.
- The State contends the juvenile court followed required procedures, considered §54.02(f) factors, and that evidence supports waiver; the State opposes relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of juvenile waiver order (failure to state/certify reasons) | Waiver order failed to state specific reasons and certify findings as required by Fam. Code §54.02(h); thus waiver was invalid | Juvenile court complied with procedures and articulated consideration of §54.02(f) factors | Court must ensure statutory requirements for waiver (specific written reasons/certification) are strictly followed; where absent, waiver may be invalidated (applicant argues vacatur/dismissal) |
| Adequacy of consideration of §54.02(f) factors (sophistication/maturity) | Dr. Burns’s report does not support a finding Reed was sufficiently sophisticated/mature; no evidence basis for that finding | State asserts court considered psychological and other evidence and could credit witnesses/records | A juvenile court’s finding must have some evidentiary support; courts review whether record contains evidence supporting findings on sophistication/maturity |
| Adequacy of consideration of §54.02(f) factors (public protection/rehabilitation) | Record lacks support for finding that rehabilitation was unlikely or public protection inadequate under juvenile resources; no probation report or rehabilitative evidence presented | State contends it considered rehabilitation prospects and offense seriousness supports waiver | Waiver cannot rest solely on offense seriousness; court must consider rehabilitation prospects and protection factor with some evidentiary support |
| Service of summons / jurisdictional defects | Reed was not personally served with juvenile summons as required by Fam. Code §§53.06–53.07; lack of proper service voids certification and deprives district court of jurisdiction | State likely argues service was proper or that procedural defects do not negate later jurisdiction | Procedural defects in required juvenile notice/service can implicate jurisdiction; failure to follow statutory summons procedures can render certification void and undermine district court jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (juvenile waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action; courts must safeguard juvenile procedural rights)
- Hidalgo v. State, 983 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (transfer to adult court should be used only in exceptional circumstances; §54.02(f) factors must be considered)
- Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (in absence of statutory civil appeal, waiver order is reviewable after final conviction)