### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00 148 -CV

In t he m at te r of T. E.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-2 1,60 7 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N T.E., a juvenile, a

ppeals a n order requiringhim to re g ister as a se x offe nder. SeeT e x. Fam. Code Ann. § 56.01(a) (West Supp. 2009). He argues t hat t he trial court abused its discretion by iss uin g the or de r. We w ill a ff ir m.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND In 2003, at age 13, T.E. was found guilty of eng ag ing in de linquent conduct, se e id
. § 51.03 (West Supp. 2009)—specifica lly , com m i t t i n g t wo ac ts of ag g ravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2009). The c ourt place d T.E. on probation in his mot her’ s custody for one y ear . T.E.’s off enses r equire d him to reg ister as a sex offender , see Te x. Cr im. Pr oc . Code Ann. art . 62. 00 1( 5) (We st Supp . 2 00 9) , b ut a s a juv e nil e he wa s a

ble to f ile a motion to ex cuse or

defe r re g istr at ion. Se e id . art. 62.351 (West Supp. 2009). The tria l court g rante d the motion and allowed T.E. to de fer reg istration pending his c o mpletion of a treatment prog ram. Se e id . art. 62.352(b) (1) ( West 2006).T.E. appe aled his committal to TYC, and we a ff i rm ed it. See I

n re T.E. , No. 1 03 -0 4
- 0 0 5 9 0
- C V , 2 0 0 5 T e x. Ap p . L E X I S 5 2 6 6 ( T e x. Ap p . — A u s t i n Ju l y 7 , 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t .) (m e m. op.). 2

Approxim ately

ten months later, the State filed a Motion to Modify Disposition alleg ing that T.E. had violated v ar i o us conditions of his probation. The cour t found the State’s alleg ations to be t ru e. Ac cording ly , the cour t revoke d T.E.’s probation and place d T.E. in the custody of the Te x as Youth Commissi on (TYC) f or an inde terminate pe riod of time. 1 In F e br ua ry 20 09 , s ho rt ly

be fo re T. E. wa s to be re le a se d fr om TY C c us tod y , th e State filed a motion to require sex-offende r re g istration. Se e id . art. 62.352(c ) (c ourt reta ins power to orde r sex-offende r re g istration it pre viously defe rre d). The court held a hear ing on the motion at which the State ca lled two witnesses: Amy Smit h-Rocha, who had been T.E.’s probation office r, and L esl i e M o reau, who wa s T.E.’s psy chother apist betwee n August 2008 and Fe bruar y 2009. T.E. called no w itnesses. At the conclusion of t he hearing , the court order ed T.E. to reg ister publicly as a sex offende r. Se e id . art. 62.051 (West Supp. 2009). T.E. appe als that order
. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We reviewan orde r re quiring a juvenile to re g ister as a sex offe nder f or proc edura l
err or or a buse of discr etion. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. a rt. 62.357(b) ( West 2006). A trial court abuses its discre tion if it acts in a n arbitra ry or unrea sonable manne r, without ref ere nce to guiding rules or principles. Bowie Mem ’l Hosp. v. W right , 79 S.W .3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002). When review ing
a matter committed to a trial court’s discretion, we may not substit ute our own judg ment for the tr ial3

court’s. Id
. This me ans that we examine the evidenc e in the light most fa vorable to the trial court’ s dispositi on. Se e Can tu v . S tate , 253 S.W .3d 273, 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

DI SCU SSIO N T. E. do e s n ot c la im the tr ia l c ourt c omm itt e d p ro c e dura l er ror s in o rd e ri nghim to reg ister as a

sex offender ; thus, we revie w the trial c ourt ’s orde r only for a buse of discr etion. See Tex. Crim . Proc. Code ar t. 62.357(b). T. E. argue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n by

re qu ir inghim

to r e g ist e r a s a sex offender

beca use (1) there was no e vidence that his reg istration would protec t the publ ic and ( 2) there was c lear

evidenc e that his reg istration would harm him persona lly
. T.E. i s corr ect that a cour t must balance the public’s intere st ag ainst the juvenile’s whe n d ec i d ing whether to exempt t he juvenile from r eg istering as a se x offe nder. Article 62.352( a) of the code of cr iminal procedur e pr ov ide s: Th e c ourt sh a ll e nte r a

n o rd e r e xemp tin g a

re sp on de nt f

ro m r e g istra

tio n und e r t

his c ha pte r i f t he c ourt de te rm ine s: (1) that the pr otection of the public w oul d n o t b e i n creased by reg istration of the responde nt under this chapte r; or (2) that a ny potential incre ase in prote ction of the public resulting from re g istration of the re spondent is clear ly outweig hed by

the anticipate d subs t an t i al harm to the re sp on de nt a

nd the re sp on de nt’ s fa

mil y that w ou ld r e su lt f

ro m r e g ist ratio n und e r t

his chapte r.4

Id . art. 62.352(a ) (West 2006). The trial c ourt rec og nized that T.E. would be har med by reg istering
a s a se x off e nd e r, but it

de te rmin ed th at hi s h arm wo uld no t c le arl y

outw e ig h th e pu

bli c int e re st in his reg istering
.

We hold that this deter

mination was supported by the evidenc e pre sented at the hear ing. L eslie More au, T.E.’s thera pist, testified t hat T.E. posed a hig h risk to the community . She testified that T.E. had a ctually regresse d in the months leading up to his rel ea s e. She based he r opinion on T
. E
. ’s behavior both in and out of the ther apeutic se tting. Amy Smit h-Rocha, T .E.’s former probation off

icer , testified that T.E. missed appr ox imately half of his sche duled thera py sessions while on probation. She also testified that T.E. ha d confe s s ed t o his brothers that he
c omm itt e d a

se xua l a ssa

ult oth e r t ha n th e on e fo r whic h h e wa s c onvic te d. F ina lly , th e State submitt ed thousands of pag es of TYC re cords a nd psy cholog ical eva luations that documented T.E.’ s his tor y of be havio ra l and

ps y c ho log ic a l pr ob le ms. T. E. argue s th a t e ve n if the e vid e nc e sh ow e d he wa s a da ng e r t o th e pu

bli c , th e State prese nted no evidenc e that his reg istration would actually decr ease the dang er he repr esente d. I t was not the State’s burde n, howeve r, to show that re g istration would protect the public; ra ther, it was T.E.’s burden to show that it would not. Se e id
. art. 62.351(b). T.E. prese nted no evidenc e on the matter a nd thus failed to ca

rry his burden. I n s u m, v ie w in g a ll o f

th e e v id e n c e in

th e li g h t m o s t f

av o r a b le to th e tr ia l c o u rt’s
or de r, we ho ld t

hat t he c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

re qu ir ingT. E. to r e g ist e r a s a sex offender
.5 CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , w e a ff

ir m th e or de r r e qu ir ingT. E. to r e g ist e r a s a sex offender
.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Oc tober 14, 2010