### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 396 -CV

In the Matte r of M. M.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-1 8,72 3 , 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 This is an appea l from a juveni l e co u rt order transfe rringM.M., a juvenile, fr om the Texas Youth Commi ssion (TYC) to the custody of the Institut ional Division of the Texas De pa rtme nt o f C ri min a l Just ic e (TD CJ ). On a pp e a l, M .M . a sse rt s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in admitting into evidenc e the State’ s psy cholog ical eva luation in violation of his Fifth Amendment rig hts. W e af

firm the trial c ourt’s orde r. On Marc h 2 3, 20 03 , the State fi le d a pe tit ion a lle g ing de lin qu e nt c on du c t by M. M. M. M. ple a de d tr

ue to the a lle g a tio n a

nd wa s f ound to h a ve e ng a g e d in

de lin qu e nt c on du c t, t o w it, murder. F ollowing a dispositi on hear ing, M.M. rec eived a forty -y ear

deter minate sentenc e, with a thr e e -ye ar m ini mum , in

TY C. O n N ov e mbe r 1 8, 20 05 , b y le tte r t o th e juv e nil e c ourt pursu ant to Te xas F a mil y

Cod e se c tio n 5 4. 11 , T YC re c omm e nd e d that M.M. be tr ans fe rr e d f ro m T YC to T DC J for the r emainder

of his sentenc e. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.11 ( West S upp. 2007).2 At the transf

er he aring, the trial court hea rd testimony

from Dr . Ann Kelley , a ps y c ho lo gis t w ithTY C w ho se rv e d a s th e Di re c tor of Clin ic a l T re a tme nt f

or the Gi dd ing s State Sc ho ol u nti l sh e le ft

jus t pr ior

to t he hearin g to e ng a g e in p ri vate pr a c tic e ; D r. Mic ha e l H ilg e rs , Jac qu e lin e Da iss , a

nd JohnEthe ri dg e , a sso c iate ps y c ho log ist s w ithTY C at th e Gi dd ing s State Sc ho ol; and

L e on ard Cuc olo , a

TY C r e pr e se ntativ e se rv inga s a lia iso n to the c ourt
. At the transf

er hear i ng , Dr. Hilg ers testified to a n evaluation of M.M. that he conducte d in J uly

2005 over se vera l day s for the pur poses of the tra

nsfer hear ing. H ilge rs testified t h at h e ad v i s ed M
. M
. o f t h e p u rp o s e o f t h e ev al u at i o n an d t h at i t m i gh t b e u s ed at a t ra n s fe r h ea ri n g. Be cause “the Court re lied in part on the psy ch o l og ical eva luation to make its determination on whether to transfe r Appe llant” to TDCJ , M.M. c ontends that Dr. Hilge rs’s psy cholog ical eva luation
e vid e nc e wa s a dmi tte d into e vid e nc e in v iol a tio n o f h is F if th A me ndme nt r ig hts
. At the c on c lus ion of the he ari ng , the tr ia l court or de re d th a t M. M. be tr ans fe rr e d to TDCJ for the rema inder of his sentenc e. The trial court identified the f actor s she consider ed in her deter mination. She stated:
I n making this d et ermination, the Court may consider the experience s, and the c ha ra c te r o f t

he pe rs on

be fo re and aft er comm itm e nt t o th e Te xas Y outh Commi ssion. Ican a lso consider the nature of the offe nse that y ou have c ommitt ed, and the manner in which it was committed. Even if you had done e very thing, done all of those reports, y our behavior, y our actions show a continued pattern of e ng ag ing in being dang erous, in not cha ng ing. . . . F or the prote ction o f s o ci et y and for the offe nse y ou have committed, today I transfe r y ou for the rema inder of y our sentenc e to complete it in the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice. This appea l followed.3 DI SCU SSIO N M.M. challeng es the a d m i s s ion of the State’s July 2005 psy cholog ical eva luation conducte d for the pur

poses of the tra

nsfer hear ing on the g round that it violated his F ifth Amendment rig hts ag ainst self-incr imination and Article I , Sections 10 and 19 of the T exas Const itution.
Stan dard of Revie w

We reviewa trial co u rt ’s d ecision t o transfe r a juve nile from TYC to TDCJ under
an abuse of discre tion standard. In reD. L. , 198 S.W .3d 228, 229 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied) . I n deter

mining whe ther the tria l court abuse d its discr etion, we must c onsider the e ntire
rec ord to deter

mine if the trial cour

t acted w ithout refer ence to guidingrules and pr inciples. Id
. Transfer Proce edings

Se c tio n 54 .1 1 of the fa

mil y c od e pr ov ide s that w he n a juv e nil e is g ive n a

de te rm inate sentenc e, upon TYC’s reque st to transfe r the juvenile to T DCJ , the trial cour t is required to hold a he ari ng . T e x. F am. C od e Ann. § 5 4. 11 . At th at hearin g , s e c tio n 5 4. 11 (d ) a llo ws the c ourt to consider T YC repor

ts as evidenc e: [T] he cour

t may consider w

r it te n r ep o r ts f r o m p r o b a tion of fice rs, profe ssional c ourt e mpl oy e e s, pr of

e ssi on a l c on su lta

nts , o r e mpl oy e e s of the Te xas Y outh Com mis sio n, in a dd iti on

to t he te sti mon

y of wi tne sse s.
Id. § 54.11(d). At the c onclu sion of the hea ring , the trial cour

t may either or der the return of the juv e nil e to T YC or

the tr ans fe r o f t

he juv e nil e to t

he c us tod y of T DC J for

the c omp le tio n o f h is sentenc e. Id . § 54.11(i).4 I n making a deter

mination r eg arding transfe r of a juvenile offe nder to TDCJ , a trial court may consider: (1) the experience s and chara cter of t he person befor e and a fter c ommitm ent to TYC; (2) the natur e of the penal of fense and the manner i n whi ch it was c ommitt ed; (3) the
a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p e r s o nt o c o n t r i b u t e t o s o c i e t y; ( 4 ) t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e v i c t i mo r t h e v i c t i m ’ s f

a m i l y; (5) the r ecommenda

tions of T YC and the prosec uting attorney ; (6) the be st interests of the pe rson; and (7) any other factor r eleva nt to the issue to be decide d. Id . § 54.11(k). Evide nce of eac h fac tor is not required, a

nd the t rial court need not consider ever y fac tor in making its decision. In reJ .L. C. , 16 0 S. W.3 d 3 12 , 313-1 4 ( Te x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2 00 5, no pe t.) ; In re R.G

. , 994 S.W .2d 309, 312 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1999, pet. denied)
. Adm issibil

ity of Psyc hological E valuation M. M
. c h a ll e n g e s th e a dmi s s io n o f th e p s y c h o lo g ic a l e v a lu a ti o n c o n d u c te d by Dr. Hilg ers be cause , he conte nds, it violates his state and fede ral c onstitut ional rig hts by compelling him to suppl y

incriminating evidenc e without being advised of his rig hts. M.M. c omplains only of the admission of a sing le psy cholog ical eva luation—the one conducte d by Dr. Hilg ers in Jul y 2005. Although othe r eva luations are inc luded with the exhibit s, th ey do not appea

r to be the subjec t of M. M. ’s c ha lle ng e . T he State re sp on ds that M.M. ha s fa ile d to pre se rv e thi s poin t of er ro r a nd that, in a ny e ve nt, it i s w ith out me ri t. W e f i r s ta d dr e s s M
. M
. ’ s o b

j e c t i o n s a s r a i s e d

a tt r i a l
. P r i o r

t o D r . K e l l e y’ s t e s t i m o n y, the St a te s o u g h t t o intr o d u c e into e v id e n c e St a te ’ s E xh ib it s N o . 1 an d N o . 2 A thr o u g h 2E which had be en provide d to the defe nse prior to the he aring . State’s Exhi bit No. 1 was a le t ter dated January

9, 2006, from L eonar d Cucolo to the trial court e nclosing a lar g e volume of5

documents—desig nated State’ s Ex hibits 2 A t h roug h 2E—containingsummary repor ts of M.M.’s pr og re ss, c a se pla

ns , a nd ps y c ho log ic a l e va luatio ns c omp le te d d ur ingM. M. ’s c omm itm e nt to T YC
. The letter stated that the “ case work master file and se curity file” ha d prev i o u s ly

been de livered. M.M. ge nera lly

objected to the introduc tion of the documents. H i s co u n s el lodge d the following objection:
Wit h reg ard to these documents, there are matters within these doc uments which c on sti tut e he arsay . A nd

a lso Ibe lie ve c on sti tut e vio latio ns of De fe nd ant’ s r ig ht t o c ro ss e xami natio n o f t

he wi tne sse s. We’re go ingto a sk the Court

to r e da c t or

to ig no re tho se pa

rt ic ula r se c tio ns wh ic h a

re in v iol a tio n o f s uc h, pa

rt ic ula r p ur su ant t o c ro ss.
I n r e sp on se , th e State argue d th a t th e law is cle ar t hat T YC re c or ds and

re po rt s are a dmi ssi ble in transfe r proc eeding s. The trial c ourt overr uled the objec tion and the e x hibits were a dmitted. After Dr. Ke lley

testified to M.M.’s lack of prog ress a

nd i n ab i l ity

to eng ag e in treatment and ef fec t chang es in his be havior, Dr. Hilge rs testified. Although Dr. Hilge rs had var ious contacts with M.M., he wa s specific ally called to testify about the psy cholog ical eva luation he conduc ted on M.M. over
sever al day s in J uly 2005 in c onnection with the possibili ty of transfe rring M.M. to TDCJ . When Dr. Hilg ers testified to his discussion w ith M.M. about the underlying of fense for whic h M.M. was in TYC, M.M.’s counsel stated:
Your Honor , with reg ard to c ase la w involving psyc h o lo g is ts a n d p s y chiatrists talking to D efe ndants who are n’t in c ustody , I believe this would fit the par ameter s of being custodial interrog ation. And for that rea son we a sk the Court t o s t ri k e any further me nti on of thi s in te rv ie w b y

thi s p syc ho log ist
.6

The trial c ourt overr

uled the objection, and Hilg ers c ontinued his testimony . M.M. made no fur ther objection during Hilge rs’s testimony
. On appe al, M.M. does not cha lleng e the e x hibits on hearsay g rounds, nor does he challeng e the admission of Hil g ers’ s testimony as he soug ht to do in the court below. Rather , he cha lleng es as e rror , the admission of the eva luation itself.

I n o rd e r t o p re se rv e e rr or fo r a pp e llat e revi ew, the re mus t be a tim e ly and sp e c if ic trial objection. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 33 .1 ; De

Blan c v . S

tate , 799 S.W .2d 701, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 90 ). Mo re ov e r, the c omp la int on a pp e a l mu st c omp or

t w iththe tr ia l ob

je c tio n, or

no thi ngis prese nted for r eview. Se e Re za c v . S tate , 782 S.W .2d 869, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). M.M. has failed to pr eser ve er ror f or appe llate re view. B ec au se the initial hear say objection to the sever al hundred pag es of documents is too g ener al and insufficient to inf orm the trial court of the basis of the objec tion, it fails to preserve any er ro r for revie w. And bec ause the objection base d on custodial interrog ation seeks only to strike any further mention of the interview , it d oe s n ot s uf

fi c e to p re se rv e the ch a lle ng e to t he a dmi ssi bil ity

of the e va luatio n it se lf

. B e c a us e M.M.’s objection on appe al does not comport with his objections below, M.M. has fa iled to preser ve any thing f or our r eview. Se e W

ils on v . S tate , 71 S.W .3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A s th e c o u rt o f

c r im in a l a

p p e a ls e xp la in e d

in Va ll e v . S

tate , 109 S.W .3d 500, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), To prese rve e rror

in admitting evidenc e, a pa rty must make a prope r o b

jection and g et a r uling on that objec tion. I n addition, a par ty must object eac h time the inadmissible evidence is offer ed o r obtain a runningobjection. An er ror in the admission of evidenc e is c ured wher e the same evidenc e come s in elsewher e without objection.7

Se e als o Le da

yv . S tate , 9 83 S.W. 2d

71 3, 71 8 ( Te x. Crim
. App
. 19 98) ( “ Our r ule
. . . is that overr uling a n objection to ev i d ence will not result in reversa l when other such evide nce w as
rec eived without objection, either befor e or afte r the complained- of ruling .”). The complained- of psy cholog ical e v al u at i o n was admitt ed at the be g inning of the trial prior to the te stimony of Dr . K e lle y . E xce pt f

or an obje c tio n to the “ me nti on of thi s in te rv ie w b y

thi s p syc ho log ist ,” M. M. did no t ot he rw ise ob

je c t to it. At no tim e did

M. M. ob je c t on the g ro un ds he no w r a ise s o n a pp e a l. Even if M.M. pre serve d an o b j ec tion to the admission of the evaluation re port and to Hilg e r s ’ s te s ti mo n y , M
. M
. ’ s c la im is w it h o u t me r it
. A tr an s f

e r h e ar in g u n d e r s e c ti o n 54.11 of the family code is not considere d a “stag e of a criminal prosec ution.” Under Texas law, a tra

nsfer hear ing is not a tria l; a juvenile is neither be ing a djudicated nor sentenc ed. In reD. L. , 198 S.W .3d
a t 23 0; In re J

.M.O. , 9 80 S.W. 2d 81 1, 81 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 19 98 , p e t. d e nie d) ; In re D.S. , 921 S.W .2d 383, 387 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ dism’d w.o.j.). The tra nsfer hear ing is a “sec ond chanc e hear ing” afte r the juvenile has alre ady been se ntence d to a deter minate number of y ear s. In re D.S. , 9 21 S.W. 2d a t 38 7. B e c a

us e th e ju ve nil e is a lr e a dy be ingpunis he d f

or his orig inal conduct in which he w as adjudg ed delinquent, in makingthis second cha nce de termination, the leg islature has provided that the trial court should be able to c onsider the juven i l e’ s b ehavior since commitment, a

nd the transfe r statute expressly allows consider ation of such r eports. Id .; see Te x. F a m. Cod e An

n. § 54. 11 (d ) (c ourt may c on sid e r wr itt e n r e po rt s f ro m pr of e ssi on a l c on su lta

nts and employ ees of

TYC in addit i o n t o t est imony). Section 54.11(e ) spec ifies the proc edure s to be
e mpl oy e d in

the he ari ng

and fu rt he r p ro vid e s:M. M. do e s n ot c ha lle ng e the c on sti tut ion a lity of the re le va

nt s tatut e s. 1 8 At the hea

ring , the per son to be transfe rre d or re lease d under supe rvision is entitl ed to an attorne y , to examine all witnesses ag ainst him, to pr es en t evidenc e and or al argument, and to pre vious ex ami n at i o n of all re ports on and eva luations and ex am i n at i o n s o f o r r el at i n g t o h i mt h at m ay b e u s edi nt h e h ea ri n g.
Tex. Fam
. Co d e A n n . § 5 4
. 1 1 ( e )
. T h u s , b e c a u s e a tr an s f

e r h e ar in g is n o t a s ta g e o f a cr iminal prosec ution, t h e h ear ing doe s not require the same string ent re quirements as a trial in which a person’ s g uilt is deter

mined, and the statute ex pressly provides for

the consider ation of the eva luation M.M. now challeng es, we hold that the trial court did not er r i n ad mitti ng the evaluation. In re J

.M.O. , 98 0 S. W.2 d at 81 3; In re D.S. , 921 S.W .2d at 387. We overr ule M.M.’s 1 single point of err or.
CO NC LU SION

Havingoverr

uled M.M.’s point of err or, we aff irm the trial cour

t’s order
.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 6, 2008