i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 87 4- CR Victor RO SAL ES , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 289th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR4542 Honora ble Carmen Ke lsey , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 4, 2009 AFF I RMED The sole issue pr esente d in this appeal is whether the j u v en i l e court im proper ly waived jur isd ic tio n a

nd tr ans fe rr e d th e c a se to a cr imi na l distr ic t cou rt
. We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04
- 08
- 00 87 4- CR

1 ... Sect i on 54. 02 (

j ) provi des , i n p ert i nen t par t , t hat a j uv eni l e c our t may wai ve i t s ex cl us i ve ori gi nal ju risd ic tio n a n d tr a n sfe r a p e rs o n to th e a p p ro p ria te d istric t co u rt o r c rim ina l d istric t co u rt fo r c rim ina l p ro c e e d ing s if:

(1) t he p ers o n i s 1 8 y ears o f age o r ol d er; (2 ) t he p erso n w as:

... (C ) 1 5 y ears o f age o r ol d er and und er 17 y ears o f age at t he t i m e t he p ers o n i s al l eged t o have c o m m itt e d a felo n y o f t h e se c o n d o r th ird d e g re e o r a sta te ja il felo n y; (3) no a d

judicat i o n c o ncerni ng the all eged o f f ense has be en m ad e o r no ad judicat i o n heari ng co ncerni ng t h e of f en s e h as be en c on du ct ed; (4 ) the ju v e n ile c o u rt fi n d s fro m a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e tha t:

... (B ) af

t er due d i l i gence o f

the st at e i t w as no t p ract i cab l e t o pro ceed i n juveni l e co urt be f o re t he 18 t h bi r t hday of

t he pers on becau s e:

. . . ( i i ) t h e per s on c ou l d n ot be f ou n d;

. . . (5) t he juveni l e co urt de t erm i nes t hat t here is p ro b a b le cause t o be l i eve t hat t he chi l d be f o re t he co urt commi t t ed t h e of

f en s e al l eg ed. T EX . F AM . C O D E A NN . § 5 4
. 0 2 (j) (V ernon 2 0 0 8 ).

- 2- In order for a juvenile cour

t to waive its jurisdiction and transfe r a c ase to a criminal district
c ourt , va ri ou s re qu ir e me nts mu st be met
. 1 T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 54.02(j) (V ernon 2008) . The only require ment the appe llant, Victor Rosales, cha lleng es in this a ppeal is the trial c ourt’s finding that the State exercised due diligenc e in trying to f ind Rosales so it could procee d ag ainst him before his 18th birthday
. Id
. at § 54.02(j)(4) (B )(ii). We r eview this c omplaint unde r an abuse of discretion standard, de fer

ringto the tria l c o u

r t’ s fac tual deter

minations while reviewingits lega l determinations de novo
. In reJ

.C. C. , 952 S.W .2d 47, 49 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ). The Tex as Family Code does not define “due diligenc e,” but courts have i nterpre ted the ter m to r equire that parties do more than “simply sit on their r ights or duties.” In re N.M.P. , 969 S.W .2d 95 , 100 (T e x. Ap p. —A mari llo 19 98 , n o p e t.) ; se e als o P owe ll v . S tate , Nos. 05-07-01078- CR & 05- 07-00179-CR, 2009 WL866194, at *2 (Te x . App.—Dallas A pr. 1, 2009, pet re f’d) (not desig nated fo r p ub lic a tio n) ; W

e bb v . S tate , N o. 08 -0 0- 00 16 1- CR, 20 01 WL13 26 89 4, at *7 (T e x. Ap p .—El Pa so Oct. 25, 2001, pet. r ef’ d) (not desig nated f or publ ication). Due dili g ence require s the S tate to “move04
- 08
- 00 87 4- CR

- 3- ahea d” or “ be able to rea sonably explain delay s.” In re N.M.P. , 96 9 S.W. 2d a t 10 0; se e als o P owe ll , 20 09 WL86 61 94 , at *2 ; In re C.B. , No. 2-05-341- CV, 2006 WL 1791731, at *2 (Tex. App.—For t Worth J une 29, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.). Due diligenc e does not, howeve r, require the State to “ do
ever y thing perc eivable and conce ivable to a void de lay .” In r e N

.M.P. , 9 69 S.W. 2d

a t 10 0; In re C.B. , 2006 WL1791731, at *2. Rosales was a ccuse d of sexually assaulting his nine -y ear -old niece on J uly 13, 1997. Rosales was sixt een year s old at the time of the off ense. Serg eant Char les Campbell was dispatche d to the hospital on J uly 13, 1997, to take the r eport on the sexua l as s au l t case . Serg eant Campbe ll obtained an addr ess for Rosale s from the
c omp la ina

nt’ s mo the r, wh o w a s Ro sa le s’ s siste r. Se rg e ant Campb e ll t e sti fi e d th a t he ne ve r w e nt t o the addr ess that was g iven. Serg eant Campbe ll ex plained that he w as a c risis intervention office r, and he w ould have g iven the information he obtained to dispatch who wo u l dhave g iven the information to an investig ator. De te c tiv e Ar

tur o Ce rv ante s wa s the inv e sti g a tor a ssi g ne d to inv e sti g a te the se xua l a ssa ult
. Detec tive Cervante s interviewe d the complainant on J uly 28, 1997. At that time, the complainant’s mother told Detec tive Cervante s that Rosales was no long er in the United States but h ad returne d to M e xico . D e te c tiv e Ce rv ante s te sti fi e d that th e de pa rtme nt’ s st and ard

pr oc e dure wo uld

be to fo llo w u p imme diate ly

and tr y to l oc ate Ros a le s. De te c tiv e Ce rvan tes cou ld no t r e c a ll the e ff or ts made in Rosales’s c ase, b ut under standa rd proc edure , office rs would conduc t surveillance of the
are as Rosales wa s known to fre quent or plac es whe re f amily mem b er s m i gh t live even be fore the issuance of

a wa rr an t. Detec tive Cervante s had the a ddress for Rosales that was pr ovided by the04
- 08
- 00 87 4- CR

- 4- complainant’s mother and testi fied it was “one of the addresses that I believe that we we re looking at in hopes of f

inding” Rosales. The orig i n al petition seekinga dete rminate sente nce f or ag g ravated sexual assault and indece ncy with a child was filed on October 30, 1997. By the time the petition wa s filed, Rosales
wa s se ve nte en y ears old . A t th at ti me , A dr ia na L imo n w a s th e pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r a ssi g ne d to Rosales’s ca se. On De cembe r 8, 1997, L imon spoke with Rosales’s au n t wh o informed he r that Ros a le s h a d f

le d to Me xico
. Th e a

un t wa s no t ide nti fi e d by name , and the re c or d d oe s n ot i nd ic a te that any follow-up phone calls wer e made or that anyone we nt to the aunt’s house. B eca use L imon could not locate Rosale s to serve him with the petition, L imon submi tted an af fidavit reque sting a

n
arr est war rant. The aff

idavit stated t h at L imon “reque sted information fr om [ Rosales’s] relatives (aunt) a s to [ Rosales’s] address a nd or a phone number but she di d not have a ny such information.” A war rant wa s issued for Rosales’ s arr est on Marc h 31, 1998. Detec tive Cervante s could not provide the na

me of a particula r off icer wh o we n t to the addre ss to look for Rosales; howeve r, De te c tiv e Ce rv ante s st ate d th at a ft e r t he w arran t w a s is su e d f or Ros a le s’ s arr e st, the wa rr ants division wou ld

h av e g o n e to th e a d dr e s s to tr y to lo c a te Ro s a le s in

c o mp li an c e w it

hma n d a tory p o l i c y. T h e w ar

r an t r e m a i n e d a c t i v e un t i l R o s a l e s w a s ar r e s t e d o nM ar c h2 5 , 2 0 0 6 i nH ays C o un ty, Texas. Rosales was later rele ased by

Hay s County

afte r he posted bond. Trac i Gepper

t, another juve nile probation officer, was assig ned the c ase in July of 2006, af

ter the certification and transfe r petit ion had been fil ed. Geppe rt unsucce ssfully attempted to contac t Rosales using a ll o f t h e p hone number s on the booking information from Ha y s County . Two constables f

rom Hay s County went to Rosales’s phy sical addr esses on thre e sepa rate occa sions but also wer e unable to locate Rosales. G epper t contacte d a fe w of Rosales’ s relatives who told her that04
- 08
- 00 87 4- CR

- 5- Rosales had fle d to either Mexico, Buda or Kyle, Texas, or North or South Carolina. As a re sult, a second w arr ant was issued f or Rosales’s a

rre st. Rosales was ar

rested on the s econd warr ant on J anuar y 31, 2008. When Geppert i n t er v i ewe d Rosales, he told her he had moved a round in the ele ven y ear s since the of

fense occur

red, pr imarily

living in Mexi co but a lso living in Austin a nd South C arolina. Ros a le s h a d a

wi fe and thr e e c hil dr e n li vin g in M e xico, and hi s wi fe wa s p re g na nt w itha fo ur th child. The c ertifica

tion and transfe r eva luation report, whic h was int roduced into evidence and revie wed by

the trial cour

t, states that Rosales reside d in Mex ico for the past ten y ear s, but he sp or a dic a lly

vis ite d th e Un ite d St ate s. The trial c ourt found that “a fter due di lige nce by the S tate it was not pra cticable to proce ed in juvenile court be fore the 18th bir t h d ay of [Rosales] beca

use [Rosales] could not be found.” Rosales’s 18th birthday

was Oc tober 9, 1998. B a s e d o n th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , th e tr i a l c o urt c o u l d h av e b e l i e v e d th a t R o s a l e s f le d to Mexi co in J uly

of 1997 immediately

afte r the off

ense occurr ed and that his family would not provide the probation department with any contac t information. The trial court could also have f ound that Ros a le s r e ma ine d in Me xico fr om t he tim e of

the of fe ns e un til the tim e he wa s a rr e ste d w ithon ly sporadic visit s to the United States. Moreove r, the trial c ourt could also have believed that an offic er went to the address t hat had been provided for Rosales when the arr est war rant was issued in March of 1998, but he c ould not be located. T here fore , defe rringto the trial court’ s fac t u al finding s, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concludingthat the State ac ted with due dilige nce.04
- 08
- 00 87 4- CR

- 6- The trial c ourt’s judg ment is affirme d.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice DO NO T PU B L I SH