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

NO. 03-0 8 -00 023 -CV

In the Matte r of J. J.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-2 1,16 7 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N
I nM ar c h 2 0 0 5 , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt , sit tin g a s a j u v e n i l e c o u rt , a d

j u d i c a t e d J. J. delinquen t , as s es sed a de terminate se ntence of twenty y ear s, and plac ed him in the custody of the Texas Youth Comm ission (TYC). I n November 2007, the juvenile cour

t o rd er ed that J .J ., now nineteen year s old, serve the remainder of his sentenc e in the custody of the Institut ional Division of the Te x as De partment of Criminal Just ice ( TDCJ ). In two issues on appea l, J .J
. co n tends that 2007 amendments to the human r esourc es code barr ed his transfe r to T DCJ afte r he turne d nineteen and that, eve n if the juvenile c ourt had a uthority to transfe r him, it abused its discretion in doing so. We will affirm the juvenile c ourt’s orde r.
BACK GR OUND J .J . was born on A

pril 8, 1988. I n November 2004, the State filed its third amende d petition alleg ing delinquent conduct. In the petition, the State alleg ed that, on Oc tober 10 a nd 11, 2004, J .J
. committed the offe nses of ag g ravated assault with a deadly wea pon and aggr avate d robber y with a dea dly wea

pon, specific ally a firear

m. J .J . pleade d true to committing the of fense sA deter minate sentenc e is one in which the term of commitment beg ins in the custody of 1 TYC with a possible transfe r to TDCJ
. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(d)( 3) (pr oviding f or de te rm inate se nte nc ing ) (We st S up p. 2008 ); se e als o Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 53.045( a) ( listi ng c e rt a in o ff

e ns e s f or wh ic h d e te rm inate se nte nc e may be a sse sse d) . Ade te rm inate se nte nc e is u su a lly rese rved for vi olent or habitual juvenile offende rs. See Robert Daw son, Te x as J uv e nil e Law 421-25 (6th ed. 2004) ( explaining history and scope of dete rminate-se ntencingsy stem). W e n o t e t h a tt h i s w a s not the fi rs tt i m e t h a tT Y C r e c o m m e n d e d J. J. ’ s t r an s f

e r t o T D C J. 2 Th e re c or d re fl e c ts that, on May 11 , 20 06 , wh e n J.J. w a s e ig hte e n, TY C r e fe rr e d J.J. to the juv e nil e c ourt fo r a tr ans fe r h e ari ng , b ut, on

June 14 , 2 00 6, TY C w ith dr e w i ts r e qu e st.

2 a lle g e d in the pe tition. T he juv e nil e c ourt fo un d th a t J.J. ha d e ng a g e d in de lin qu e nt c on du c t, imp os e d a

de te rm in ate sen ten c e of

tw e nty y e ars , and orde red that J .J . be committed to the ca re, 1
c us tod y , a nd c on tr ol o f T YC
. I n Sept em b er 2 0 07, the ActingEx ecutive D irec tor of TYC re commended to the juvenile cour

t that J .J
. be transfe rre d to T DCJ pursuant to se ction 61.079(a) of the human r esourc es code. The juvenile c ourt set a tra nsfer hear ing f or Nove mber 8, 2007. 2 Prior to the hear ing, J.J
. filed a “plea to the jurisdiction.” I n the plea, J.J ., who had turned ninete en in April 2007, arg ued that section 61.079(a) of the huma n resour ces c ode, as it had been a mended e ffe ctive June 8, 2007, “only authorizes TYC to r efe r y outh to the juvenile court for tr ans fe r h e ari ng s to TD CJ af te r t he y ou th beco mes 1 6 y e ars of a g e but be fo re the y outh’ s 1 9th birthday .” See Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 61.079(a) ( West S upp. 2008). As J .J . observe d, “TYC f a i l e d t o r e f

e r h i m t o t h e C o u rt f

o r a p p r o v a l o f a t r an s f

e r t o T D C J p r i o r

t o h i s 1 9 t hb i rt h d ay . ” J. J. fu rt he r r e a so ne d th a t “ the juv e nil e c ourt wh ic h c omm itt e d a

y outh to TY C no lon g e r ha s any ro le in deter mining whe ther the youth should be release d from TYC and incarce rate d in TDCJ afte r his or her 19th birthday .”See Act of May 27, 1995, 74th L eg ., R.S., ch. 262, § 61, 1995 Tex. Gen. L aws 2517, 2572 3 (ame nded 2007) ( curr ent ver sion at Tex. Hum. R es. Code Ann. § 61.079( a) ( West S upp. 2008)). Th e State a tte mpt s to dis tin g uis h b e tw e e n J.J.’ s a rgume nts be low

c ha lle ng ingthe juv e nil e 4 c ourt ’s “ jur isd ic tio n” and

his argume nts on

a pp e a l, whic h a

re ph ras ed in te rm s o f t

he juv e nil e 3 I nr e s p o n s e , t h e S t a t e ar g u e d t h a tt h e j uv e n i l e c o u rt ’ s j u r i s d i c t i o no v e r J. J. was g ov er n ed n ot by

section 61.079 of the huma n resour ces c ode, but by

section 51.0411 of the family code. Sec tion 51.0411 of the family code provides t hat t he juvenile c ourt “re tains jurisdiction
over a p e r s o n , w it

h o u t r e g ar d to th e a g e o f th e p e r s o n , w h o is r e f e r r e d to th e c o u rt under Section 54.11 for transfer to the Tex as Department of Crimi nal J ustice or r elea se under supervision.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.0411 ( West 2002). The State also ar g ued that the amended ve rsion of
se c tio n 6 1. 07 9 o f t

he human r e so ur c e s c od e did no t g ov e rn

J.J.’s tr ans fe r. Th e ve rs ion of the statut e that should apply , acc ording to the S tate, was the version in ef fec t at the time J .J . was a djudicated de lin qu e nt i n 2 00 5. Th a t ver sio n of the statut e g a ve TY C a uth or ity to r e fe r a c hil d to the juv e nil e court for transfe r to TDCJ befor e the c hild becomes 21 y ear s of ag e. 3 The juvenile court denied the pl ea to the j urisdiction. Then, af ter he aringevidenc e, the juv e nil e c ourt tr ans fe rr e d J .J. to TDCJ to se rv e the re ma ind e r o f h is twe nty -ye ar s e nte nc e . T his appea l followed.
AN AL YSI S Statutory authority to t ransfer J.J. to TDCJ

We f ir st a dd res s J .J.’ s se c on d is su e , in wh ic h h e c on te nd s th a t th e juv e nil e court abused its discre tion in transferr ing J.J . to TDCJ beca use it lacke d statutory

authority or jurisdiction to transfer him af ter he turned ninete en. I n support of this contention, J .J . relies on 4court’s “ authority ” and whether it “abused its discre tion” in exceedi n g t h at authority . Relying on this purported distinction, the S t at e ar gu es that J .J . has fa iled to brief his conte ntions reg arding the juvenile cour

t’s “jurisdiction” on appe al. We disag ree . W h et h er sty led in terms of a lack of “juris d iction,” lack of

“author ity ,” or a

buse of discr etion, J .J .’s ce ntral conte ntion both here and below ha s been that the 2007 amendments to the hum an resource s code pr eclude d his transfer to TDCJ beca

use he was age 19 at t he ti me of the t ransf er order. J .J . has pre serve d this contention on a pp e a l. See Act of Ma

y 25, 2007, 80th L eg ., R.S., ch. 263, 2007 Tex. Gen. L aws 421 (e ffe ctive 5 J une 8, 2007). 4 se c tio ns 61 .0 79 (a ) a

nd 61 .0 84 (g ) o f the human r e so ur c e s c od e , a s ame nd e d in 20 07 by Se nate B ill 103. As a me nd e d, se c tio n 6 1. 07 9( a ) p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art : 5
After a child sente nced to commitment under Section 54.04(d) (3), 54.04( m), or 54.05(f) , Family

Code, bec omes 16 y ea rs o f age but before the c hild become s 19 years of age , the commission may ref er the child to the juvenile court that enter ed the order of commitment for a

pproval of the child’s transf er to the Texas Depa

rtment of Criminal J ustice for

confine ment . . . . Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 61.079(a) ( emphasis adde d). T h e am en ded ver sion of
se c tio n 6 1. 08 4( g ) p ro vid e s:
Th e c omm iss ion

sh a ll tra ns fe r a pe rs on wh o h a s b e e n s e nte nc e d und e r a de te rm inate se nte n c e t o c o m m i t m e n tu n d e r S e c t i o n5 4
. 0 4 ( d ) ( 3 ) , 5 4
. 0 4 ( m ) , o r 5 4
. 0 5 ( f ) , F a m ily Cod e , o r wh o h a s b e e n r e tur ne d to the c omm iss ion

un de r S e c tio n 5 4. 11 (i )( 1) , F a mil y Code, to the custody

of t h e T ex as De partment of Criminal Just ice on the person’s 19th birthday , if the per son has not alre ady been disc harg ed or tra

nsfer red, to ser ve the re mainder of

the p er s o n’s sentenc e on par ole as provide d by Section 508.156, Gover nment Code.
Id . § 61.084(g ) (West Supp. 2008) (empha sis added).

Under the amende d versions of these statutes, acc ordi n g to J .J ., TYC lost the
a uth or ity to re fe r him

to t he juv e nil e c ourt

fo r t ra ns fe r t o T DC J af

te r h e tur ne d n ine te e n, wh ic h inSee Act of May 27, 1995, 74th L eg ., R.S., ch. 262, § 61, 1995 Tex. Gen. L aws 2517, 2572, 6 2573-74 (c u rr en t versions at Te x . Hum. Res. Code Ann. §§ 61.079(a ), 61.084(g ) (West Supp. 2008)). 5 turn divested the juvenile c ourt of author ity to act on such a

ref err al. J .J . further

asser t s t h at once he turned nineteen, the amende d version of section 61.084(g) require d TYC to transfe r him to the custody of TDCJ t o serve the re mainder of his sentence on parole
. The S tate maintains that the amended versions of t hese statutes do not apply to J .J .’s transfe r. Instead, the State contends, the versions of the statutes in effe ct when J.J . was a djudicated delinquent in 2005 g overn. U nder the se ver sions of the statutes, TYC could re fer a pers o n for t r an s f e r t o T D C J n o l a t e r

t h ant h e p e r s o n ’ s 2 1 s tb i rt h d ay. 6 Although w e re view the juvenile c ourt’s dec ision to t ransf er a juvenile f

rom TYC to TDCJ for a

buse of discr etion, In re F.D

. , 245 S.W .3d 110, 113 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2008, no pet.),
our re solution of J .J .’s spec ific conte ntions here turn on questions of statutory construction, which prese nt questions of l aw that we re view de novo. First Am. Tit le Ins. Co. v. Combs , 258 S.W .3d 627, 631 (Tex. 2008). Our primary objective in statutory construction is to g ive ef

fec t to the leg islature’s intent. State v. Shumak

e , 1 99 S.W. 3d

27 9, 28 4 ( Te x. 20 06 ). We se e k th a t in te nt “ fi rs t and fo re mos t” in the statutory

text
. Le x ing ton In s. Co. v . S

tra y ho rn , 209 S.W .3d 83, 85 (Tex. 2006). We rely on the pl ain m e anin g of

the te xt, un le ss a

dif fe re nt m e anin g is s up pli e d b y le g isl a tiv e de fi nit ion

or is
a pp are nt f ro m c on te xt, or

un le ss s uc h a

c on str uc tio n le a ds to a

bs ur d r e su lts tha

t th e le g isl a tur e c ou ld not have intende d. City of Rockwall v. Hughes , 2 46 S.W. 3d 62 1, 62 5- 26 (T e x. 20 08 ); see Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.011 (West 200 5 ) (“[w]ords and phrase s shall be re ad in context and construed
a c c or din g to t

he ru le s o f g ra

mma r a nd c omm on us a g e ” ). We m

us t c on sid e r t

he statut e a s a

wh oleSe c tio n 5 4. 11 (a ) p ro vid e s, 7 On re ceipt of a

ref err al under

Section 61.079(a) , Human Resourc es Code, for the transf er to the instit utional division of the Texas D epar tment of Criminal J ustice of a pe rson committed to the Texas Youth Com mission under Section 54.04(d)(3) , 54.04(m), or 54.05( f), or on rec eipt o f a re quest by the commission under S ection 61.081(g) , Human Resourc es Code, for approva l of the re lease under supervision of a pe rson co m m i tted to the commission under Section 54.04(d)( 3), 54 .0 4( m) , or 54 .0 5( f) , the c ourt sh a ll s e t a tim e and pla c e fo r a

he ari ngon

the re le a se of the pe rson. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.11( a) ( West S upp. 2008). 6 an d in c o n te xt, an d n o t me r e ly c o n s id e r p r o v is io n s in is o la tion. T ex a s Dept. of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley , 146 S.W .3d 637, 642 (Tex. 2004).

We first observe that the l eg islature has g iven t he juvenile c ourt “e x clusive orig inal jurisdiction over pr o cee dings unde r this titl e [the juvenile justice code ].” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.04(a) (West 2002). This jurisdiction ex tends to proce edings “i n all case s involving the delinquent condu ct o r conduct indicating a need f or super vision eng ag ed in by

a per son who
was a child within the me aning of this ti tle at the time the per son eng ag ed in the conduc t.” Id . T he se proce eding s include hea

ri ng s to relea se a juve nile under the supervision of TYC or to tra nsfer a juvenile to TDCJ
. Se e id . § 54.11(a) (West Supp. 2008). Fur thermore , the leg islature has pr ovided 7 that “[t] he cour

t retains jurisdiction over a person, without

regard to the age of the pe rson , wh o is ref err ed to the cour

t under Sec tion 54.11 f

or transfe r to the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice
or re lease under supe rvision.” Id . § 51.0411 (West 2002) (empha sis added).

The leg islature did not amend or alter a ny of these pr ovisions wh en it amende d t h e h u m an resour ces c ode. B y the express terms of these provisions, the juvenile court r etained7

jurisdiction to transfer J.J . to TDCJ afte r he t u rn ed n ineteen. J.J .’s ar g uments reg ardingthe 2007 amendments to the human resour ces code instead potentially implicate whether TYC re t ai ned authority , afte r J
. J
. t u rn ed nineteen, to ref er him to the juvenile c ourt for tra nsfer to TDCJ . The
answe r depe nds on whether the amende d versions of sections 61.079(a) and 61.084(g ), which took eff ect a fter J.J . was a djudicated de linquen t b u t prior to TYC’s re fer ral of J.J . to the juvenile cour t for a transfe r hea

ring , g overn his re fer

ral. In a memora

ndum opinion decided ea rlier this y ear , this Court concluded that the amended statutes do not apply retrospe ctively

to persons who ha d been adjudicated delinquent as j uveniles under the prior law
. See I n re T.G. , No. 03-07-00543- CV, 200 8 Tex. App. L EXI S 4551, at *21 (Tex. App.—Austin J une 19, 2008, pet. de nied) (me m. op.) (“We c onclude that the le g islature intended f or the amendments to human resour ces c ode sections 61.079 and 61.084 to operate only prospec tively .”). J.J . acknow ledg es this opinion, but ask s th at we “ re vie w” or re c on sid e r i t. We c on c lud e that T.G. w a s c o r r e c t l y d e c i d e d , an d

w i ll follow it here. “A statute is presumed to be prospe ctive in its operation unless expressly made
re tr os pe c tiv e .” Te x. Go v’ t Cod e Ann. § 3 11 .0 22 (We st 2 00 5) ; see also Tex. Const. art. I , § 16 (“N o bil l of a tta ind e r, e x pos t f

a c to l aw, re tr oa c tiv e law, or any law i mpa ir ingthe ob lig a tio n o f c on tr a c ts, shall be made.” ). “Statutes are only applied retroa ctively if the statutory

lang uag e indicate s that the L eg islature intended that the statute be re troac tive.” In reM. C.C

. , 187 S.W .3d 383, 384 (Tex. 2006). Senate B ill 103 contained languag e indicating that the leg islature may have intende d retrospe ctive
a pp lic a tio n in

c e rt a in c a se s invo lvi ngjuv e nil e s w ho ha d c omm itt e d mi sd e me ano rs :8

A per son committe d to the Texas Youth Comm ission on the basis of conduct constituting the c ommissi on of an of fense of the g rade of misdem ea n o r under Subdivis ion ( 2), Subsection (d), Section 54.04, Family Code, as it existed before the effectivedate of this Act , mu st b e dis c ha rg e d f rom th e cus to dy

of the Te xas Y outh C o m m i s s i o nn o tl a t e r

t h ant h e p e r s o n ’ s 1 9 t hb i rt h d ay.
A c to f M ay 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , 8 0 t h L e g . , R
. S
. , c h
. 2 6 3 , § 6 5 , 2 0 0 7 T e x. G e n . L aw s 4 2 1 , 4 5 5 ( e mp ha sis added) . Howeve r, there is no lang uag e in Senate B ill 103 i n d i ca t i n g that the leg islature intended the amende d versions of se ctions 61.079(a) and 61.084(g) to apply retroa ctively in case s involving felony offe nses. As this Court observed in T.G. , the above provi s i o n d em o n s t rate s “[t] hat the leg islature knew how to make a pr ovision retrospec tive,” In re T.G. , 2008 Tex. App. L EXI S 4551, at *20, imply ing that it did not intend simil ar r etrospec tive appli ca tion to juveniles who had
c omm itt e d f

e lon ie s:
I ti s e q u a l l y c l ea r t h at t h e l egi s l at u re s o u gh to n l y t o ef fe ct an i m m ed i at e d i s ch ar ge fr om t he TY C f or tho se pe rs on s w ho ha d co mmi tte d a mis de me ano r. I t ne c e ssa ri ly follows that the leg islature did not intend to disc harg e or rele ase to pa role a person . . . who had c ommitt ed a f elony and had r ece ived a de terminate se ntence
. Id
. J.J. re c e ive d a de te rm inate se nte nc e fo r c omm itt ing a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly
we a p o n an d a g g r av a te d r o b b e r y w it h a d e a d ly w e a

p o n , b o th f

e lo n y o f f e n s e s . J. J. was sente nced prior to the ef

fec tive date of

the 2007 amendments to sec tions 61.079(a) a nd 61.084(g ) of the human re source s code
. A

b s e nt e xp r e s s la

n g u a g e in d ic ating that the leg islature intended r etrospec tive application, we must presume that the amende d versions of se ctions 61.079(a) and 61.084(g ) do not apply here
. Se e In re M. C.C

. , 187 S.W .3d at 384.F or e xamp le , s e c tio n 6 7 p ro vid e s: 8 The c hang e in la

w made by Section 54.052, Family Code, as adde d by this Act, and Sub se c tion (c), Se c tio n 6 1. 08 41 , H uma n Re so ur c e s Co de , a s a dd e d b y thi s A c t, a pp lie s o nly

to c on du c t f

or wh ic h a c hil d is a dju dic a te d o n o r af te r t he e ff e c tiv e date of this Act. A c hil

d wh o is ad

jud ic ate d b e for e the e ffe c tiv e date of t

his Ac t is go v e rn e d b

ythelawin e

ffe c t wh e n the c hil

d wa s a dju dic ate d, an d th e for me r la w is c on tin ue d in e

ffe c t fo r th at p ur

po se . Ac t of May 25 , 2 00 7, 80 th L e g ., R.S. , c h. 26 3, § 6 7, 20 07 Te x. Gen . L aws 42 1, 45 5 ( e mph a sis added)
. Sub se c tio n ( b) pr ov ide s, “ I f t he pe na lty , f

or fe iture , o r p un ish me nt f or any of fe ns e is 9 re du c e d b y

a re e na c tme nt, re vis ion , o r a me ndme nt o f a

statut e , th e pe na lt

y , f or fe iture , o r p un ish me nt, if not alrea dy

impos ed , s h al l b e im posed ac cordingto the statute as ame nded.” T ex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311 .0 31 (a ) ( Wes t 20 05 ). As the re wa s n o r e du c tio n in “ pe na lty , f

or fe iture , o r p un ish me nt” i nt h i s c a s e , t h i s s u

b s e c t i o nd o e s n o ta

p p l y.
9 J.J. attr ibute s si gnif

ica nc e to t

he fa c t th a t th e re is n o s pe c if ic savin g s c la

us e in Senate Bi l l 1 0 3 i n v o lving the statutory amendments at issue in this case . Observingthat the le g isl a tur e inc luded a s pe c if ic savin g s c la

us e fo r c e rt a in o the r p or

tio ns of the 20 07 ame ndme nts , 8 J .J . sug g ests that b y o m i t t i n g a similar saving s clause f or sec tions 61.079(a) a

nd 61.084(g ), the le g is latu r e e v id e n c e d it s inte n t to d is c o n ti nu e th e f o r me r v e r s io n s o f th o s e s tatute s as soon as the amende d versions bec ame e ffe ctive. We disag ree . I nstead, the g ener al saving s clause of the Cod e Con str

uc tio n A c t g ov e rn s: (a) Ex cept as provided by Subsection (b),[ ] t

he re e na c tme nt, re vis ion , ame ndme nt, 9 or re pe a l of a statut e do e s n ot a ff

e c t: (1 ) t he pr ior op e ratio n o f t

he statut e or

any pr ior a c tio n ta ke n und e r i t; (2 ) a ny va lid a tio n, c ur e , r ig ht, pr ivi le g e , o bli g a tio n, or lia bil ity pr e vio usly a c qu ir e d, a c c ru e d, a c c or de d, or inc ur re d und e r i t;10 (3) a ny violation of the statute or a ny penalty , forf

eiture, or punishment incurre d under the statute befor e its amendment or r epea l; or (4 ) an y inv e s ti g a ti o n , p r o c e e d in g , o r r e me dy c o n c e r n in g an y p r iv il e g e, obligation, liabili ty , penalty , forf eiture, or punishment; a

nd the investig ation, proce eding , or re medy

may be instituted, co n tinued, or enf orce d, and the penalty , forf

eit u re , o r punishment imposed, as if the statute ha d not been repe aled or

amende d. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.031(a) (West 2005) (empha sis added). We a re “t o p re s u m e that the g ener al saving s clause a pplies unless a contr ary

leg islative intent is shown by clea r expression
or nec essar

y implication.” Qu ic k

v . Ci ty of A us tin , 7 S. W
. 3 d 1 09, 130 (Tex. 1999). Findingno contra ry leg islative intent, we conc lude th at t h e gene ral saving s clause a pplies in this case. Specifica lly , subsection (a )(4) applies, as the he aringto transfe r J.J . to T DC J wa s a proc eeding
conce rning his punishment for the fe lony offen s es he had pr eviously committed and for which he had bee n adjudicate d delinquent prior to the e ffe ctive date of Senate Bill 103.

We conclude that the versions o f s ections 61.079(a) and 61.084( g ) of the human re source s code in e ffe ct at the time J.J
. wa s adjudicate d delinquent in 2005 g overn TY C’s
re fe rr a l of him to t he juv e nil e c ourt

fo r p os sib le tr ans fe r. Con se qu e ntl y , TY C r e ta ine d th e a uth or ity to refe r J.J . to the juvenile cour t for tra nsfer to TDCJ afte r he turne d nineteen. We ove rr u le J .J .’s second issue.
Mer its of the transf

er or der We n owa dd

re ss J .J .’ s f

ir st i ssu e , in

wh ic h h e c ha lle ng e s th e me ri ts o f t he juv e nil e
c ourt ’s de c isi on

to t ra ns fe r him to TD CJ. Ac c or din g to J.J ., he sh ou ld n ot h a ve be e n tr ans fe rr e d to TDCJ beca

use he w as “a dvancingin all phases of the [TYC] resoc ialization progra m.”11 On c e TY C r e fe rs a pe rs on to t he juv e nil e c ourt

fo r a tr ans fe r, the juv e nil e c ourt is require d to hold a hear ing to de termine whether to tr ansfe r the person to the custody of TDCJ for the completion of the per son’s sentenc e. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.11(a) , (i) (West Supp. 2008). I nm ak i n g t h i s d et erm i n at i o n , t h e j u v en i l e c o u rtm ay co n s i d er a n u mb er o f f ac t o rs , i n cl u d i n g: (i ) the e xpe ri e nc e s and c ha ra c te r o f t he pe rs on be fo re and

a ft e r c omm itm e nt t o the y outh c omm iss ion ; (ii) the nature of the penal offe nse that the person was found to have c ommitt ed and the manne r in which the of fense was c ommitt ed; (i ii) the a

bil iti e s o f t

he pe rs on to c on tr ibute to s oc ie ty ; (iv) the protec tion of the victim o f t h e offe nse or a ny member of

the victim’s fa mil y ; (v ) the re c omm e nd a tio ns of the y outh c omm iss ion

and pr os e c uti nga tto rn e y ; (vi) the best intere sts of the person; a nd (vii) any

other fa ctor re levant to the issue to be de cided.
Id . § 54.11(k). The juvenile cour t is not required to consider all of t h e fa ct o rs , and the c ourt is ex pressly

allowed to conside r unlisted but releva nt fac tors. I

n r e C.L. , 8 74 S.W .2d 880, 886 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 1994, no w rit). Evidenc e of e ach listed fa ctor is not require d. Id
. S i m i l ar l y, the juvenile cour

t may assig n differ ent weig hts to the factor s it considers. Id
. We r e vie w the juv e nil e c ourt ’s de c isi on to t rans fer a ju ve nil e fr om T YC to T DC J for abuse of discretion. In re F.D

. , 2 45 S.W. 3d a t 11 3; In reC.L. , 874 S.W .2d at 886. In deciding wheth er th e juv e nil e c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n, we re vie w the e nti re re c or d to de te rm ine if the cour t acted w ithout refer ence to any g uiding rules or principles. In reJ .L. C. , 160 S.W .3d 312,12

313 (T ex . App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.). I f “some e vidence ” exists t o support the juvenile cour t’s decision, there is no abuse of discretion. In re F.D

. , 2 45 S.W. 3d a t 11 3; In reD. L. , 198 S.W .3d 22 8, 22 9 (Tex
. App. —Sa n A nto nio 20 06 , p e t. d e nie d) ; In re R.G

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

At the transf

er he aring , the juvenile cour t considere d testimony

from seve ral witnesses. Emir Pere z, J .J .’s probation office r, t estified briefly about J .J .’s criminal history . Perez te sti fi e d th a t, i n a dd iti on

to t he of fe ns e s f or wh ic h J.J. ha d b e e n a dju dic a te d de lin qu e nt, J.J. h a d a lso be e n a c c us e d o f c omm itt ingthe of fe ns e s of cr imi na l tre sp a ss i n 2 00 1 a nd fa ili ngto atte nd

sc ho ol i n 2003 and 2004. Perez further testified that “ther e was a ref err al in Dece mber of 2004 f or ag g ravated
a ssa ult wi th a de a dly we a po n. ” Ac c or din g to P e re z, J.J. w a s a lle g e d to have us e d a kit c he n k nif e in the De c e mbe r 2 00 4 a ssa ult , a nd , o n th e of

fe ns e s f or wh ic h J.J. ha d r e c e ived hi s d e te rm inate sentenc e, J.J . was a lleg ed to have used a .32 c aliber r evolver and a knif

e. L eonar d Cucolo, TYC’s court liaison, summariz ed for the juvenile cour

t J .J .’s be havio r a

nd pr og re ss whil e J.J. wa s in the c us tod

y of TY C. C uc olo te sti fi e d a s f oll ow s: Well, J immy

has bee n with us for 31 months. During that time, he’s eng ag ed in 85 documented inc idents of misconduct. E ight of those are self-r efe rra ls and are not c on sid e re d in c ide nts of

mis c on du c t and

are a c tua lly

g oo d th ing s. He wa s pla c e d in the se c ur ity un it on 19 oc c a sio ns . Hi s las t pla c e me nt o c c ur re d in September of

this y ear

for da ng er to other s. Overa ll, hi s b eh av i or has be en inc on sis te nt t o p oo r. Th a t’ s h owIde sc ri be d it
. Mo re imp or

tantl y , h is b e havio r h a s r e fl e c ted so me ve ry se ri ou s a ssa

ult s. Ac tua lly tw o n e w f

e l o n y o f f e n s e s t h a t w e r e c o m m i t t e d w h i l e c o n f i n e d i n t h e T e xas Y ou th Commi ssion. One in November of ‘05, and one rec ently over where the y outh was assaulted in Jul y

of this y ear .13

Both victims sustained injuries and r equire d h o s p i t alization. S o there ’s serious assaultive beha

vior problems that he’ s eng ag ed in.
C u c o l o e x p l a i n e d

t h a tJ
. J
. h a d

e n g a g e d i nf

o u r i n c i d e n t s t h a tw e r e c h ar a c t e r i z e d a s C a t e g o r

y 1 vio latio ns , w hic h w e re c on sid e re d to be the mos t se ri ou s. Tw o o f t ho se inc ide nts we re the a ssa ult s mentioned above
. I n the Novembe r 2005 assa ult, J .J . punched a

corr ections off

icer in the fac e, inj ur inghis e y e . In the July 20 07 a ssa ult , J.J. h it a y outh “ se ve ra l tim e s in the fa c ia l are a .” Cuc olo testified that J .J . knocked the y outh to the gr ound and re ndere d him unconsci o u s . The other two Categ ory 1 violations were a

n “assa ult by threat and a bodily

injury ” in September

2005, and “tamper ing w ith technolog y and saf ety equipment” in August 2006. Cuc olo a dd e d that J .J . “h a s d on e we ll o n o c c a sio n” and that he ha s b e e n a

ble to maintain g ood behavior

for “ a per iod of time.” Howe ver, acc ording to Cucolo, J .J . has “ne ver be en able to sustain it.” Cucolo further testified that J .J
. did “ very well” aca demica l l y an d compl eted T YC ’s “Building Tr ades Prog ram,” “Independe nt L iving Projec t,” and “ Project Rio,” a pr og ram desig ned to prepare juveniles for interviewing and g etting a job. Never

theless, Cucolo explained, TYC was rec ommending that J .J . be tra nsfer red to TDCJ because of the “ very serious assa

ultive behavior ” that J.J . had eng ag ed in as re cently as Jul y of that y ear . Dr. Na ncy Razo, TYC’s Director

of Clinical Service s at t h e fa ci l i ty wher e J.J . had been in c ustody , evaluated J .J . for tra nsfer to TDCJ . Dr. R az o t es t i fied that, duringher inter view with J .J ., he minimi z ed h i s responsibility for the of

fense s for whic h he had be en adjudicated delinquent and “ took no responsibility for his beha

vior.” Razo also disputed whether J .J . had made pr og ress in TYC’s resocialization prog ram. I n fac t, Razo t estified that she be lieved ther e“ Cor re c tio na l ph a se s” me a sure a juv e nil e’s pr og re ss i n T YC ’s c or re c tio na l pr og ra

ms. 10 When juveniles beg in at TYC, they start at phase C-0. C-4 is the hi g hest phase a juvenile can obtain. Dr . Ra zo te sti fi e d th a t, whe n s he e va luate d J .J ., he was lis te d at a C- 4 e ve n th ou g h, a c c or din g to Razo, his behavior and failure to a cce pt pe rsonal responsibility for his ac tions merited a C-3 or C-2. Razo testified that C-2 is the lowest phase to which a juvenile ca

n be demoted. T h er e ar e al so “ac ademic pha ses” a nd “beha vioral phase s” that oper ate in a similar manner . The re cord r efle cts that, at the time of the tr ansfe r h ea ri ng , J .J . had attaine d an A- 4, the highe st aca demic level. As for his behavior al l evel, in the y ear befor e he w as transf

err ed, J.J . had fluctuate d betwee n a B -3 and a B- 4. At the time of the tra nsfer hear ing, he was at a B -3. 14 wer e times duringJ .J .’s stay in the facility when, a s a re sult of his behavior, J.J . should have be en de mot e d to low e r “ c or

re c tio na l ph a se s, ” but he wa s n ot. 10 D r . Ra zo a g r e e d w it

h T Y C’ s r e c o mm e n d a ti o nth a t J. J. b e tr an s f e r r e d to T D CJ. Ra zo
a dmi tte d th a t on e of

the re a so ns sh e re c omm e nd e d th e tr ans fe r w a s b e c a us e the e ff

e c ts o f S e nate B ill 103 wer e still uncertain, a nd TYC was “ under the i m p re ssion” that offe nders who ha d turned nineteen ne eded to be rele ased or transfe rre d. Howeve r, R azo added that she probably would have
rec ommended J
. J
. ’s t ra n sfer even if Senate B ill 103 had not been an issue. Ra zo testi fied that her r ecommenda

tion was based on he r conc erns that the a ssault J .J . had committed in J uly was violent, that it occ urre d when J.J . was a lrea dy awa re that he was f

acingtransfe r, and that J .J . did not take re sp on sib ili ty

fo r c omm itt ingthe of

fe ns e s th a t ha d r e su lte d in his a dju dic a tio n. Ra zo w a s a lso
c on c e rn e d th a t J.J. wa s, in h e r w or ds , “ c ov e rt ,” me anin g that he c ou ld co mmi t a vio le nt o ff

e ns e “ a ll of a su dd e n” and wi th “ no wa rn ing .” Whe n a sk e d if the re we re any a dd iti on a l se rv ic e s th a t c ou ld be off ere d to J .J . if he wa s returne d to the custody of TYC, Razo testified, “The re’ s rea lly nothing differ ent that could be of

fer ed. . . . [W ]e really

exhausted all possibil ities. . . .”15 Cary Gr an t , J .J .’s ca se mana g er, te stified that when he talked to J .J . about the July 20 07 a ssa

ult , J.J. to ld h im that he wa s a c tin g in s e lf -d e fe ns e and

that th e oth e r youth h it h im first. Howe ver, G rant a dded, J.J .’s explanation of the assa ult contra dicted the written repor t of the incident. Also, Gra

nt testified, J .J . had diffic ulty acc epting responsibility for the f ull ex tent of the injuries sustained by

the y outh that he had a ssaulted. Gra nt rec ounted, “[H]e felt that m o s t o f the injury had bee n cause d when the kid’ s head hit the c ement. B eca use I had to explain to him y ou kn o c k e d h i m u n c o n s c i o u s , an yt h i n g t h a t h a p p e n e d t o t h e k i d a f

t e r t h a t w a s a l s o yo u r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. That par t he didn’t g rasp.” On cross-e x amination, Gra nt te stified that J .J
. was no longe r “de fiant,” that he had been making an “ef fort” to “ work the prog ram,” and that he was no long er a disruption to t he pr og ra m. To summ ari ze, wh ile the re wa s e vid e nc e that J.J. wa s ma kin g so me pr og re ss i n TYC’s re socialization progr am, this evidence was disputed by Dr. Razo. On the other hand, it was undisputed that J .J . eng ag ed in violent, assaultive behavior on multipl e occa sions both befor e and af t er h e wa s committed to TYC, including a se rious incident in J uly 2007—less than five months befor e J.J .’s transf

er he aring —that rende red a

y outh unconscious. Fur

thermore , there was e vidence that th e of fe ns e s f or wh ic h J.J. ha d

be e n a dju dic a te d d e lin qu e nt w e re vio le nt c ri me s invo lvi ngde a dly
we a po ns and that J.J. r e fu se d to a c c e pt fu ll re sp on sib ili ty fo r the of fe ns e s he ha d c omm itt e d. On thi s
r e c o r d , w e f

i n d t h a t “ s o m e e v i d e n c e ” e xi s t s t o s u p p o rt t h e j u v e n i l e c o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o nt o t r an s f e r J. J. to T DC J. Ac c or din g ly , w e c on c lud e that th e juv e nil e c ourt did no t abu se its dis c re tio n. We o ve rr ule J .J .’s first issue.16 CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e or de r o f t

he juv e nil e c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: De cembe r 31, 2008