i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 36 0- CR Kevin BLE YS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 386th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-8319 Honora ble L aura L . Parker , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Marialy

n Ba rnar d, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: May 12, 2010 AFF I RMED F oll ow inga

ple a of g uil ty , a

pp e lla nt K e vin B le y s w a s c on vic te d o f a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult wi th a dea dly wea pon. The jury sentenc ed Bley s to six teen y ear s confineme nt in the Texas Depar tment of C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e - I n s t i tu t i o n a l D i v i s i o n . O n a p p e a l , B l e y s c o mp l a i n s t h e t r i a l c o u rtabu se d it s discretion when it wa ived juvenile jurisdiction a nd transfe rre d Ble y s’s case to adult court. We aff irm the trial cour

t’s judgme nt.04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Be x ar C o u n t y De p u t y S h er i ff

S an t o s C h av arri a J r. wa s d i s p at ch edt o t h e s ce n e o f as t ab b i n g. When he ar

rived, he found a c haotic sce ne that included ne ighbor s, family members, the vic tim, and Ble y s. The victim, twelve- y ear -old Mohammad Mar tinez, was ly ing f

ace down nea

r a wooded ar ea. Martinez suffe red multiple stab wounds a n d wa s co vere d in blood. Deputy Chavarr ia believe d Martinez would likely

die. Deputy

Chavarr ia aske d Martinez, who was c onscious, who had done this to hi m. Martinez said it was a longstory . Martinez was ai rl i ft ed to the hospital wher e he underw ent emer g ency

surg ery . Martinez’s lun g s had collapse d, his liver, small intestine, and duodenum wer e punctured, and his ga ll bladder ha d to be re moved. He a lso suffer ed stab wounds to h is r ig ht a

rm that c a us e d n e rv e dama g e , tw o s ta b w ound s to his c he st, and on e sta b w ound on his le ft arm . In a ll, it a

pp e are d Mart ine z su ff

e re d a s many a s se ve nte e n sta b wo un ds
. He re ma ine d in the hospital for a

month. An expert stated Martinez would have likely died but f or the e merg ency surg ery . Whe n D e puty

Cha va rr ia arr ive d, B le y s w a s si tti ng ne xt t o Ma rt ine z. B le y s w a s c ov e re d in blood and hy

perve ntilating. The deputy asked B ley s what had ha ppened, a n d Bl ey s told him he h ea rd s cr ea m i n g i n t h e wo o d s an d t h en s aw M ar t i n ez co m e o u to f t h e w o o d s l i mp i n g an d b l ee d i n g. Deputy Chavarr ia noticed Ble y s had a cut to his fing er that was “se rrated.” When the de puty went int o the wo od s, he fo un d the fo lia g e dis tur be d, blo od , and a se rr a te d ste ak kn if e . D e puty

Cha va rr ia believed B ley s might have been involved in the sta bbing. B ley s was ac ting de sperate and c razy . I nitially , Martinez continued to procla im it was a “longstory ” whe never he wa s asked what happene d. Howeve r, af

ter a time, Ma

rtinez told his mother Ble y s stabbed him. W hen he te stified at trial, Mar

tinez said h e an d Ble y s were g ood friends e ven thoug h Ble y s was older and taller
.04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

- 3- Acc ording to Martinez, he and B ley s had a third f riend, B rian Tolliver. Tolliver was a couple of y ear s older than Ma

rtinez, and Ble y s was about a y ear and a ha lf older than T olliver. M art i n e z t e s t i f

i e d t h a to nt h e d ay o f t h e s t a

b b i n g , h e w e n t t o T o l l i v e r ’ s h o u s e t o s ay g o o d

- b ye to T oll ive r b e c a

us e To lli ve r a

nd his fa mil y we re g oin g on

va c a tio n. B le y s w a s at T oll ive r’ s h ou se
as we ll. Martinez said he and B ley s left Tolliver’s h o u s e t o p l ay basketba ll at Martinez’s house. Ble y s left Martinez’s house, but in a short while he r eturne d and sug g ested they g o into the woods behind Martinez’s house. Ma rtinez said they

went fur ther into the woods than they usually did, and when they

g ot to a place wher e the br ush was thick, Mar

tinez decide d to g o home. M artinez testified he wa s le a din g the wa

y ba c k to his ho us e wh e n B le y s kn oc ke d him do wn . B le y s th e n s ta bb e d h im
se ve ra l tim e s. Mart ine z tr ie d to re sis t, to sc re am, but it be c ame inc re a sin g ly dif fi c ult . M art ine z sa id t h a ta f t e r t h e s t a b b i n g , B l e ys p i c k e d h i mu p an d t r i e d t o s t r an g l e h i man d

c u th i s t h r o a t
. B l e ys p an i c k e d , an d

M art i n e z , i nana t t e mp tt o c a l m B l e ys , t o l d B l e ys h e w o u l d

t e l l w h a t e v e r

s t o r y B l e ys wanted him to tell. At Martinez’s re quest, Ble y s helped him make his wa y closer to the house
. Ble y s appar ently g ave sever al stories about the stabbing
. He told two neig hbors M ar t inez had fallen on a st ick. He told one of those same neighbor s a hunter had injured Ma rtinez, but then said he did not re al l y

know what ha

ppened. B ley s g ave thr ee dif fer ent explanations to an investigator from the B exar C o u n t y S h er iff’s De partment. In eac h version, B ley s and Mar tinez
e nte re d th e wo od s to g e the r, but th e sto ry c ha ng e d e a c h ti me a s to su

bs e qu e nt e ve nts
. On t he evening of t he st abbing , Ble y s was brought to the Sher iff’s De partment by his father
. Ble y s tu r n e d o v e r h is b lo o dy c lo th in g . T h a t s ame e v e n in g , in a v id e o ta p e d inte r v ie w with the in v e s ti g a to r h andling the ca se, Will iam Spaulding, B ley s insist ed someone else ha d in ju r e d M a r ti n e z. Two day s later, B ley s and his fathe r re turned to t h e S heriff ’s Depa rtment and spoke to a

differ ent04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

1 ... Y et , B l eys al so t est i f i ed he be l i eved t hei r r el a tio n sh ip wa s weake ni ng be cause of T o l l i ver’ s i ncreasi ng d e p re ssio n o v e r a gir l.

- 4- investigator, Aar on Von Maldau. B ley s’s fathe r told I nvestig ator Von Ma ldau that B ley s stabbed M ar t i n ez an d wa n t edt o d o t h e r i gh tt h i n g. I n v es t i gat o r V o nM al d au ca l l edI n v es t i gat o r S p au l d i n g, who was at the hospital interviewingMartine z, and told him Ble y s confe ssed. Investig ator S p a u l d i n g r e tu r

n e d t o t h e S h e r i f

f ’ s D e p art m e n tan d

t o o k B l e y s ’ s v i d e o t a

p e d s t a t e m e n t
. B l e ys confe ssed duringthe statement. T h e i n vestig ators subseque ntly obtained a w arr ant and a rre sted Ble y s. B le y s te sti fi e d at tr ia l. A c c or din g to B le y s, he ha d k no wn To lli ve r f

or a bo ut t e n y e ars . Tolliver i ntroduce d Ble y s to Martinez approximately two y ear s befor e the tria l. Bley s admitted he g ot along better w ith Tolli ver tha n he did with Martinez, but felt his friendship w i t h T o l l i v er was
we ake nin g . B le y s sa id h e be lie ve d M art ine z wa s th e c a us e of the g ro wi ng dis tanc e be tw e e n h ims e lf and Tolliver. 1 B le y s a dmi tt e d th a t b y th e d ay o f th e s ta b b in g , h e h a d

b e c o me an g r

y w it hM arti n e z, and contr adicted himself by stating he thought of

Martinez as a friend, but the n denying be ing f riends wi th h im o r s pendi ng mu ch ti me wi th h im. B le y s te sti fi e d h e de c ide d to kil l Ma rt ine z be c a

us e Martinez made some ne g ative re marks about Tolliver, which Bley s did not like. Ble y s admitted that afte r he a nd Martinez enter ed the woods, he stabbed Mar tinez approx imately

thirteen times. He claimed he stopped bec ause he rea liz ed what he was doing was “absolutely cra zy .” Ble y s told the jury he could not believe he had sta bbed Mar tinez. Ble y s stated Martinez told him to calm down a nd take him ba ck to his house, which he attempted to do, eventually dropping Martinez near

the house. Ble y s said he apolog ized to Martinez after the sta bbing. B ley s claimed he initially lied about what happene d beca

use he w as af

raid of g oing to jail.04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

- 5- I n a dd iti on

to t e sti fy

ingon his own beh alf

, B le y s c a lle d D r. B ri an Sk op , a fo re ns ic ps y c hiatr ist , as a witne ss. Dr . Skop state d he be lie ve d Bl e y s is int e lli g e nt, but ve ry sh y and so c ia lly immature, wit h an almost patholog ical attachment t o Tolliver. Acc ording to Dr. Skop, Bley s saw Martinez as a t h re at to his relationship with Tolli ver, c ausing him to los e contr ol and attac k Martinez. Ble y s, who was sixt een- y ear s-old at the time of the stabbing , was originally under the jurisdiction of t he juvenile court sy stem. Howeve r, the State subseque ntly filed an “ Orig inal Petition for W aiver of J urisdiction and Discretionary Transf er to Criminal Court,” askingthe juvenile cour t to waive jurisdiction and tra nsfer the ca se to the district court. A cer tification hear ing was held, after wh ic h th e tr ia l c ou

rt g ra nte d th e State ’s pe tit ion, wai vi ng jur isd ic tio n a nd tr ans fe rr ingthe c a se to criminal di strict court. Ble y s was thereaf ter indi cted for agg ravated assault with a dea dly wea pon. B le y s ple d guil ty

to t he jur y , w hic h a sse sse d p un ish me nt at c on fi ne me nt f or sixte e n y e ars , imp lic itl y de nyinghis a

pp lic a tio n fo r c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on . T he tr ia l c ourt e nte re d ju dg me nt i n
acc ord with Ble y s’s plea a nd the jury ’s ver dict. Ble y s then perf ecte d this appeal. A N A L Y SIS I n h is s o le p o int o f

e r r o r , B le y s c o n te n d s th e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o nin

w a iving jur isd ic tio n a

nd tr ans fe rr ing his c a se to a du lt c ri min a l c ourt . H e argue s th e e vid e nc e wa s f a c tua lly insufficient to support the trial c ourt’s finding s that (1) the pr ocedur es , service s, and fa cilities available to the juvenile cour t were inadequate for Ble y s’s reha bilitation, and (2) the we lfare of the
c omm un ity re qu ir e d p ro c e e din g s in

c ri min a l di str ic t c ourt . B le y s’ s e nti re argume nt is b a se d o n h is be lie f t hat de te rm inate se nte nc ingwa s an ava ila ble op tio n th a t w ou ld h ave a ff or de d a de qu a te service s, proce dures, a

nd fac iliti es for

his rehabilitation, and prote cted the c ommunity welfa re.04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

- 6- “A de fenda

nt may appea l an orde r of a juvenile court cer tifying the defe ndant to stand trial
as an a dult and transfe rringthe def endant to a cr i m i n al co u rt under Sec tion 54.02, Family Code.” T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 4 4. 47 (a ) ( Ve rn on

20 06 ). Suc h a

n a pp e a l is pe rm itt e d o nly

in conjunction with an appe al of a conviction for the offe nse for which the defe ndant was tra nsfer red to criminal court. Id. art. 44.47(b) . An appe al from a cer tification and tra

nsfer order is a criminal matter g overne d by

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e and the rules of a ppellate pr ocedur e applicable to criminal ca ses. Id. art . 4 4. 47 (c ); see also I n re M.A.V. , 8 8 S. W. 3 d

3 2 7 , 3 3 1 n . 2 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.). An appe llate cour

t revie ws a juvenile court’s decision to cer tify a juvenile de fenda

nt as an adult and transfe r the proce eding s to c riminal court under a n abuse of

discretion standa

rd. State v. Lopez , 1 9 6 S.W .3d 872, 874 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pe t. ref’ d), cert. de nied , 5 4 9 U
. S. 1 2 57 (2 00 7) ; Fa iss t v. St ate , 105 S.W .3d 8, 12 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, no pe t.). Absent an a buse of discretion, the a

ppellate c ourt will not dist urb a tria l court’s tra nsfer and ce rtification orde r. Fa iss t , 1 0 5 S
. W
. 3 d

at 1 2 (c i t i n g C.M

. v . S tate , 884 S.W .2d 562, 563 (Tex. App. —San Antonio 1994, no writ)). In deter

mining whether the trial court abused i ts discretion, the re viewingcourt c onsiders the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence
. Fa iss t , 105 S.W .3d at 12. A t rial court’s finding s of fa ct ar e re viewed by the same sta

nd ard s a pp lic a ble g e ne ra lly

to l e g a l and

fa c tua l su ff

ic ie nc y re vie w i n c ri min a l c a se s. Id. Her e, Bley s challeng ed only the factual sufficiency of t he evidence to support the trial cour t’s finding s relatingto reha

bilitation and community welfa re. We will , t h er ef

o re , consider a ll of the evidenc e to deter

mine if the court’s finding is so ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e as to be manifestly unjust. Id. (c i t i n g C.M. , 884 S.W .2d at 563).04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

2 ... T he s t at ut e a l s o provi des t he ch i l d may b e t r ans f er r ed t o cr i mi nal cour t i f he i s f our t een y ear s of

ag e or ol der a n d th e a lleg e d o ff

e n se is a c a p ital felo n y, an a g g ra v a te d c o n tro lled su b sta n c e felo n y, o r a felo n y o f t h e fi rs t d e g re e . T EX . F AM . C O D E A N N . § 5 4 .0 2 (a )( 2 )( A ). I n t hi s case, how ever, i t i s und i sput ed t hat B l eys was s i xt een at t he t i m e o f t he o ff e n se , a n d the o ff

e n se a lleg e d , ag g ra v a te d a ssa u lt, w a s a se c o n d d e g re e felo n y. See T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 22. 02( b) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). A c c o rd ing ly, the a p p lica b le p o rtio n o f t h e sta tute is se c tio n 5 4 .0 2 (a )( 2 )( B ).

- 7- A juvenile cour

t may waive its exclusive jurisdiction and tra nsfer a child to a c riminal court if: (1) the c hild is alleg ed to have committed a felony ; (2) the child was fifteen y ear s of ag e or olde r at the time the offe nse occur red, and the offe nse alleg edly committed is a second or third d eg ree f e l o n y, o r a s t a t e j a i l f

e l o n y; 2 (3) no a djudication hear ing ha s been c onducted c oncer ning the alleg ed of fe ns e ; and (4 ) a ft e r a fu ll inv e sti g a tio n and a he ari ng the juv e nil e c ourt de te rm ine s th e re is p ro ba

ble
cause to be lieve the child committed the offe nse alleg ed, and that beca use of the se riousness of the offe nse or the c hild’s backg round, the we lfare of the community require s criminal prose cution. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 54.02(a) (1), ( 2)(B ), (3) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). To fa cilitate this decision, the Texas Family

Code provides c riteria f

or the c ourt to consider: (1) whe ther the a lleg ed off ense w as aga inst person or proper ty , with gr eate r we ight in favor of

transfe r if the of

fense was a g ainst a per son; (2) the sophistication and maturity of the c hild; (3) the r ecor d and pre vious history of the c hild; and (4) t h e p ro spects of a dequate protec tion of the public and the likelihood of re ha bil itatio n o f t

he c hil d b y

us e of pr oc e dure s, se rv ic e s, and fa c ili tie s c ur

re ntl y available to the juvenile cour t. Id. § 54.02(f) . Although the juvenile court must c onsider eac h fac tor, it is not requir ed to find that
eac h fac tor has bee n established, nor is it require d to give eac h fac t o r equal weig ht. Fa iss t , 105 S.W .3d at 11. I n this case, B ley s challeng es only the trial co urt’s finding s that (1) the se riousness of the offe nse and the child’s bac kg round we re suc h that transfe r to a criminal district c ourt was ne cessa ry04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

- 8- fo r t he we lf are of the c omm

un ity , and (2 ) the pr oc e dure s, se rv ic e s, and fa c ili tie s c ur re ntl y ava ila ble to the juvenile cour

t were inadequate for B ley s’s reha bilitation. SeeT EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 5 4
. 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , ( f

) 4 )
. In ar g u i n g t h e s e f

i n d i n g s ar e s u

p p o rt e d b y f a c tu a l l y i n s u f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e , B l e ys relies solely on the i dea that an opti on was available that would have allowe d for his re habilitation and ade quately

protec ted the community –deter minate sentenc ing. A deter minate sentenc e is one in which a juvenile is initi all y co m m i t ted to a ter m in the custody of the Te x as Youth Co m m i s s i o n wi th a possible transfe r to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Institut ional Division. See id. § 54.04(d)( 3) (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). Section 53 .0 45 (a ) o f t

he F amil y

Cod e pr ov ide s th at whe n a c hil d is a lle g e d to have c omm itt e d c e rt a in offe nses, including ag g ravated assault, the pr osecutor may ref er the petition requestingadjudication as a de linquent to the g rand jury
. Id. § 53.045(a) (6) ( emphasis adde d). I f the g rand jury approve s the submitted petition by

a vote of nine, j ust as wit h an indi ctment, t he approval i s cer tified to the juvenile court a

nd enter ed into the re cord. Id. § 53.045(b), ( d). I f the prose cutor re fer s the petition to t he g ra nd jur y , th e g ra nd jur y a pp ro ve s th e pe tit ion , a

nd the g ra nd jur y ’s a pp ro va l is c e rt if

ie d to the juvenile cour

t and filed in the juvenile c ourt’s re cord, the juvenile co u rt may impose a deter minate sentenc e. See Matter of S.J. , 977 S.W .2d 147, 149 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (citi n g s e c ti o n s 5 3
. 0 4 5 ( a ) , ( d ) an d 5 4
. 0 4 ( d ) ( 3 ) o f

th e T e xa s F ami ly

Co d e )
. H o w e v e r , if

the prosec utor does not obtain and f ile the grand jury ’s ce rtification, the juvenile c ourt is without jurisdiction to im pose a de terminate se ntence
. Id. (citing section 54.04(d)( 2), (3) o f t h e T exas Family Code). Only if all the require ments are met may the cour t impose a deter

minate sentenc e; it is onl y then t hat t he S tate’s petition is deeme d an indictment for pur poses of late r transf

err ing the juvenile to Texas Depa

rtment of C riminal J ustice-Institut ional Division or the parole board. Matter04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

- 9- of S.J. , 9 7 7 S
. W
. 2 d

a t1 4 9 ( c i t i n g s e c t i o n5 3
. 0 4 5 ( d ) ); see also T EX . H UM . R ES . C ODE ANN . § 6 1. 08 4( a ), (c ) ( Ve rn on S up p. 20 09) ( statin g tha t if pe rs on is c omm itt e d to Te xas Y outh Commi ssion pursuant to determinate sentenc e under section 54.04(d)(3) of F amily Code, Commi ssion may

not discharg e per s o n fr om custody , rathe r it must transfer pe rson to Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Institut ional Division for completion of sente nce)
. Clearly , the dec ision to refer the petition to the gr and jury is at the State’s option, and if the S t at e n ev er

re fe rs t h e p et i t i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt h a s n o j u ri s d i ct i o nt o o rd er d et erm i n at e s en t en ci n g. Matter of S.J. , 9 77 S.W. 2d a t 14 9 ( c iti ngse c tio n 5 4. 04 (d )( 2) , ( 3) of the Te xas F amil y Cod e ). I n th is
case , the State chose not to r efe r the pe tition; rathe r, the State c hose to seek a waiver of jurisdiction and transfe r to c riminal district court, as wa s its right. Ther efor e, contr ary to Bley s’s asser

tion, the tr ia l c ourt did no t ha ve the op tio n o f i mpo sin g de te rm inate se nte nc ingso a s to pro vid e B le y s w ith the re habilitation needed a nd to protect the c ommunity welfa re. See id. Moreove r, Bley s has not
c ite d a ny a uth or ity to su

pp or t his su g g e sti on

tha t th e juv e nil e c ourt

c ou ld s ome ho w f

or c e the State to refe r its petition for adjudication to the gra nd jury
. The statute c lear ly g ives the State the option of re fer ral without interfe renc e fr om the trial court. SeeT EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 53.045(a)
. B e c a us e B le y s’ s o nly

argume nt i s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ig no re d th e op tio n o f d e te rm inate
se nte nc ing , r e nd e ri ngits fi nd ing s o n r e ha bil itatio n a

nd c omm un ity we lf are fa c tua lly

ins uf fi c ie nt, we must overr

ule his contention bec ause a s demonstrated a bove, dete rminate sente n cingwas not an option available to the trial court. The t ri al cour t was, in fac t, without jurisdi ction to impose a04
- 09
- 00 36 0- CR

- 10- deter minate sentenc e. Ac cording ly , we ove rrule B ley s’s point of err or and a ffirm the tria l court’s judgme nt. Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice
PUB L I SH