1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00134-CV

____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF SAMUEL SAN-MIGUEL

__________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-07-07301 CV 

__________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas filed a petition to commit Samuel San-Miguel as a 

sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151 

(West 2010 & Supp. 2015). A jury found that San-Miguel is a sexually violent 

predator, and the trial court rendered a final judgment and an order of civil 

commitment. In two appellate issues, San-Miguel challenges the legal and factual 

sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment and order of civil 

commitment.

In issues one and two, San-Miguel contends the evidence is legally and 

factually insufficient to support the finding that he has a behavioral abnormality 
2

that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. We address 

San-Miguel’s issues together. Under a legal sufficiency review, we assess all the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any 

rational trier of fact could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements required 

for commitment under the SVP statute. In re Commitment of Mullens, 92 S.W.3d 

881, 885 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied). It is the factfinder’s 

responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and 

draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. Id. at 887. Under a

factual sufficiency review, we weigh the evidence to determine “whether a verdict 

that is supported by legally sufficient evidence nevertheless reflects a risk of 

injustice that would compel ordering a new trial.” In re Commitment of Day, 342 

S.W.3d 193, 213 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet. denied).

In an SVP case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a 

person is a sexually violent predator. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 

841.062(a) (West 2010). A person is a “sexually violent predator” if he is a repeat 

sexually violent offender and suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes 

him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. Id. § 841.003(a) (West 

Supp. 2015). A “behavioral abnormality” is “a congenital or acquired condition 

that, by affecting a person’s emotional or volitional capacity, predisposes the 
3

person to commit a sexually violent offense, to the extent that the person becomes 

a menace to the health and safety of another person.” Id. § 841.002(2) (West Supp. 

2015). “A condition which affects either emotional capacity or volitional capacity 

to the extent a person is predisposed to threaten the health and safety of others with 

acts of sexual violence is an abnormality which causes serious difficulty in 

behavior control.” In re Commitment of Almaguer, 117 S.W.3d 500, 506 (Tex. 

App.—Beaumont 2003, pet. denied).

San-Miguel admitted that he was convicted of two cases of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child. San-Miguel also admitted that he received over fifty 

disciplinary cases while in prison, over thirty of which were classified as major. In 

addition, San-Miguel admitted that during his incarceration, he received multiple 

disciplinary cases for attempting to establish an inappropriate relationship with a 

staff member,1 as well as multiple disciplinary cases for sexual misconduct.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Darrel Turner testified that after reviewing all of 

the records and interviewing San-Miguel, he determined that San-Miguel suffers 

from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act 

of sexual violence. Turner testified that San-Miguel is sexually deviant, and he 

 1

One of the prison staff members testified that she wrote between thirty-five 

and fifty disciplinary cases against San-Miguel for breaking the rules, including 

conduct he directed towards her, and she described him as a “[s]talker and 

psychotic.” 
4

explained that San-Miguel had raped a thirteen-year-old girl and orally raped a sixyear-old girl and had been convicted of sexual offenses.

Turner testified that in forming his opinion that San-Miguel has a behavioral 

abnormality, he relied upon San-Miguel’s convictions and admissions of other 

sexual offenses, as well as his own finding that San-Miguel is sexually deviant.

Turner explained that he diagnosed San-Miguel as suffering from hebephilia 

(sexual attraction to children who have begun to develop secondary sexual 

characteristics), antisocial personality disorder, sexual abuse of a child, and 

polysubstance abuse in partial remission. Turner testified, “[i]t’s clear that there is 

a sexual deviance. It’s clear that there is some paraphilia which is . . . a term that 

means an attraction to something outside of the norm.” Turner testified that SanMiguel laughed about the fact that the younger sister of his thirteen-year-old victim 

was also in the bed while he was sexually assaulting the victim. Turner explained 

that San-Miguel forced his sexual organ into that younger child’s mouth.

According to Turner, San-Miguel “is not remorseful[,]” “seems to still take 

pleasure in what happened[,]” and “almost seemed proud of it.” Turner explained 

that San-Miguel’s lack of remorse is “further evidence that he has a behavior 

abnormality today[.]” Turner testified, “I really got a glimpse of what this offender 

is really like, and it was scary.”
5

Turner identified as risk factors the young age of San-Miguel’s victims, use 

of force, San-Miguel’s relatively young age, tendency to denigrate and blame his 

victims, polysubstance abuse in partial remission, and hebephilia. Turner also 

discussed San-Miguel’s deviant sexual behavior in prison, such as exposing his 

sexual organ to female staff members, masturbating in front of female staff 

members, trying to establish inappropriate relationships with female staff 

members, and “noncontact homosexual behaviors[.]”

According to Turner, during his interview with San-Miguel, San-Miguel 

leered at a female correctional officer, which Turner testified evidences “a lack of 

impulse control and just this predatory nature.” Turner described San-Miguel’s 

staring at the officer as a “psychopathic reptilian predatory stare.” Turner 

explained that a lack of impulse control indicates a behavioral abnormality that 

would make someone likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence, and he 

opined that San-Miguel’s sexual offenses and current sexual deviancy constitute 

evidence that San-Miguel’s emotional and volitional capacity has been affected.

According to Turner, San-Miguel’s sexually deviant behavior is evidence of 

antisocial personality disorder.

Turner also testified that San-Miguel’s score on the Hare psychopathy 

checklist was “[e]xtremely high.” Additionally, Turner testified that San-Miguel’s 
6

actuarial scores placed him in a “high to moderate range of risk for reoffending[,]”

and San-Miguel has not had sex offender treatment. Turner also testified that SanMiguel’s release plan did not address preventative measures to keep him from 

reoffending. Turner opined that San-Miguel has a behavioral abnormality that 

makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.

Psychiatrist Dr. Sheri Gaines testified that she evaluated San-Miguel and 

relied upon principles of forensic psychiatry in doing so. Gaines explained that 

standard methodology involves a face-to-face interview, as well as reviewing 

police records, victim statements, depositions of other experts, and other ancillary 

information. Gaines testified that she interviewed San-Miguel for approximately 

two hours and reviewed the records from Turner, another expert, and San-Miguel’s 

deposition. Gaines opined that, based upon her education, training, experience, and 

the methodology she used, San-Miguel suffers from a behavioral abnormality that 

makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.

According to Gaines, the main reasons for her findings were San-Miguel’s 

risk factors of sexual deviancy and unstable lifestyle. Gaines explained that the 

facts and data surrounding San-Miguel’s sexual convictions also constituted risk 

factors and helped her to formulate her opinion about whether San-Miguel is likely 

to reoffend. Gaines testified that San-Miguel told her his thirteen-year-old victim 
7

had made advances toward him. Gaines explained that the age of San-Miguel’s 

victims, San-Miguel’s substance abuse, his use of force, and his belief that he does 

not need sex offender treatment are risk factors. In addition, Gaines testified that 

San-Miguel’s “stoic description of these horrific events indicated his lack of 

remorse.” Gaines testified that San-Miguel had received disciplinary cases in 

prison for refusing to work, not obeying orders, assault, contraband, “dirty 

urinalysis,” use of drugs and alcohol, masturbation, and attempting to establish an 

inappropriate relationship with a staff member.

Gaines explained that she diagnosed San-Miguel with paraphilic disorder, 

antisocial personality disorder, and “substance use disorder with many different 

substances.” According to Gaines, Turner’s diagnosis of hebephilia and her 

diagnosis of paraphilic disorder are “not really differences. They’re 

complementary[;] they have a lot of the same characteristics. Just a different 

approach to the terminology.” Gaines identified San-Miguel’s support system with 

his family and his high school diploma as positive factors. Gaines testified that, in 

her expert opinion, San-Miguel suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes 

him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. 

San-Miguel testified that he is currently incarcerated for two convictions of 

aggravated sexual assault of a child. San-Miguel testified that when the offenses 
8

occurred, he was using drugs and alcohol with the father of the victims. SanMiguel denied raping the thirteen-year-old victim or using force against her, and he 

denied forcing the six-year-old victim to perform oral sex. San-Miguel testified 

that many of his disciplinary cases involved sexual misconduct.

Psychologist Roger Saunders testified that he met with San-Miguel for 

approximately two hours at the prison, and he did not see San-Miguel leer or stare 

at the female prison staff. According to Saunders, although the public believes a 

high percentage of sex offenders will reoffend, “[t]he known re[-]offense rates are 

actually pretty low.” Saunders testified that denial and minimization do not predict 

an offender’s likelihood of reoffending. Saunders explained that he saw no 

evidence that San-Miguel groomed his victims. Saunders opined that San-Miguel 

does not have a behavioral abnormality. In addition, Saunders testified that he does 

not consider San-Miguel a repeat sex offender “[b]ecause in the treatment 

community we understand this is a single event. Even though there was more than 

one victim, we understand it as a single sexual event.” Saunders opined that SanMiguel’s substance abuse history is “the prevailing factor in most of his criminal 

offenses.” Saunders testified that “it’s not a likelihood” that a person will repeat a 

crime he committed in an alcohol and drug-induced state. In addition, Saunders 

testified that because San-Miguel has had the opportunity to sexually assault but 
9

did not act on it, San-Miguel does not have a serious difficulty with impulse 

control. According to Saunders, San-Miguel has “many antisocial personality 

characteristics based on his history[.]” Saunders also opined that based upon SanMiguel’s age, he is no longer in the highest risk category for re-offense. During 

cross-examination, Saunders testified that a reasonable psychologist or psychiatrist 

could conclude that San-Miguel has antisocial personality disorder and is a 

psychopath.

As discussed above, San-Miguel admitted that he was convicted of two 

cases of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and that he had received multiple 

disciplinary cases during his incarceration. Turner opined that San-Miguel suffers 

from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act 

of sexual violence, San-Miguel is sexually deviant, and San-Miguel suffers from 

hebephilia, antisocial personality disorder, abuse of a child, and polysubstance 

abuse in partial remission. Turner also noted that San-Miguel lacked remorse, and 

he identified as risk factors the young age of San-Miguel’s victims, San-Miguel’s 

use of force, San-Miguel’s relatively young age, tendency to denigrate and blame 

his victims, polysubstance abuse in partial remission, and hebephilia. Turner also 

testified that San-Miguel’s scores on actuarial instruments place him in the high to 

moderate range of risk for reoffending. 
10

Gaines also testified that San-Miguel suffers from a behavioral abnormality 

that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence, and she 

explained that the age of San-Miguel’s victims, San-Miguel’s substance abuse, use

of force, and his belief that he does not need sex offender treatment are risk factors.

Gaines diagnosed San-Miguel with paraphilic disorder, and “substance use 

disorder with many different substances.”

As sole judge of the weight and credibility of the evidence, the jury could 

reasonably conclude that San-Miguel suffers from a behavioral abnormality that 

makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. See In re 

Commitment of Richard, No. 09-13-00539-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6974, at *7

(Tex. App.—Beaumont June 26, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have 

found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that San-Miguel is a sexually violent predator; 

therefore, the evidence is legally sufficient. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 

841.062(a); see also Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 413 (2002); Mullens, 92 

S.W.3d at 885. In addition, weighing all of the evidence, including the testimony 

of San-Miguel and Saunders, the verdict does not reflect a risk of injustice that 

would compel ordering a new trial. See Day, 342 S.W.3d at 213. We overrule 
11

issues one and two and affirm the trial court’s judgment and order of civil 

commitment.

AFFIRMED.

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on November 10, 2015

Opinion Delivered December 10, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.