In re D.D.C.
| Decision Date | 20 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 13-22-00239-CV |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF D.D.C., A CHILD. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County Texas.
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
This is an appeal of a juvenile court's grant of the State's petition for discretionary transfer to criminal court. By two issues, which we re-organize and construe as one issue with two sub-issues, appellant D.D.C.[1] argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in waiving its jurisdiction and transferring D.D.C.'s proceeding to district court for criminal prosecution. Specifically, D.D.C. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that (1) there was probable cause to believe D.D.C. committed murder and (2) the welfare of the community requires criminal proceedings because of the seriousness of the offense and background of D.D.C. We affirm.
On March 17, 2022, the State filed its amended petition for discretionary transfer to criminal court, alleging that: (1) on February 19, 2022, D.D.C. is alleged to have committed the offense of murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.02 (b)(1) and (b)(3); (2)D.D.C. was fifteen years old at the time he is alleged to have committed the offense; (3)no adjudication hearing had been conducted concerning the alleged offense and (4)the welfare of the community required the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction and have D.D.C. transferred to criminal court for criminal proceedings because of the seriousness of the offense and the background of the child. On May 19, 2022, the juvenile court had a hearing on the State's amended petition for discretionary transfer. The juvenile court took judicial notice of the contents of the court's file, which included a psychological evaluation report by Karan Redus, Ph.D. The State and D.D.C. presented some witnesses' testimony, which we summarize below.
Richard Theis, Ph.D., a psychologist, testified that he had interviewed D.D.C. Although he did not administer psychological tests to D.D.C., he reviewed some tests that had been conducted by Dr. Redus. Dr. Theis opined that the results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescents (MMPI-A) exam administered to D.D.C. were invalid and should be set aside because D.D.C. had reported that staff at the detention center and Dr. Redus reinterpreted fifty questions for him, which was inconsistent with testing protocol. Dr. Theis testified that D.D.C.'s school records indicated his grades were A's and B's, but Dr. Theis expressed surprise that D.D.C. was not in special education. Dr. Theis testified that D.D.C.'s overall intellectual profile was estimated to be in the low to average range, significantly below that of most children his age. Dr. Theis also testified that D.D.C.'s reading and comprehension levels were significantly below a seventh-grade level, which equated to an average twelve-year-old. Dr. Theis concluded that D.D.C.'s limited intellectual abilities, impoverished background, and other factors resulted in D.D.C.'s maturity level being much less than his chronological age. Dr. Theis also concluded that D.D.C. could be rehabilitated with significant psychological or psychiatric intervention and educational opportunities consistent with his intellectual limitations.
Shane Wesley Collins, former detective of the Victoria Police Department, testified that on February 19, 2022, his supervisor notified him that multiple 911 callers reported a shooting that occurred at Lova Drive in Victoria County, Texas. Officers at the scene found Tinasha Upton unconscious on the ground, bleeding from a gunshot wound on the back of her head, next to a vehicle that had been driven into a fence. Upton died as a result of her injuries. Upton's children and their friend were found at the scene and interviewed. Based on their statements, Collins determined that D.W.,[2] one of Upton's juvenile sons, had an altercation with J.T.B., another male juvenile, at a carnival prior to the shooting. During that altercation, J.T.B. and an unidentified Hispanic male confronted D.W. and one of his brothers. According to the statements, J.T.B. had a gun in his waistband and tried to lure D.W. and his brother into a darkened area, but D.W. and his brother left.
Collins further testified that J.T.B. was interviewed at the juvenile detention center and provided two statements. In his second statement, J.T.B. admitted that both he and D.D.C. were involved in the shooting. J.T.B. stated that because of the altercation at the carnival, they followed Upton's vehicle. When Upton made a U-turn on Lova Drive, heading towards them, "[J.T.B.] and [D.D.C.] reached out the window with firearms and shot at [Upton's] vehicle." J.T.B. also stated that Jacqueline Perez, D.D.C.'s girlfriend, drove the vehicle from which shots were fired at Upton's vehicle.
Collins testified that Perez provided a statement and explained she went to the carnival to pick up D.D.C. and J.T.B. The three went to a house to pick up other juveniles, "went back to the carnival, [and] waited for the victims to leave with their mother." Perez confirmed that they followed Upton's vehicle onto Lova Drive, and that after Upton made a U-turn, "multiple shots were fired as the vehicles were passing." Perez did not identify who shot the firearms but admitted to dropping off J.T.B. and the other juveniles after the shooting, and that she and D.D.C. went back to their apartment. Another juvenile, M.R., also provided a statement and identified D.D.C.[3] Based on the statements of J.T.B., Perez, and M.R., Collins concluded he had probable cause to believe that D.D.C. was an active participant in the shooting and death of Upton. On cross-examination, Collins confirmed that J.T.B., M.R., and Perez all had lied at some point during their interviews and had changed their statements.
Dr. Redus testified that she performed a psychological evaluation of D.D.C. Dr. Redus first administered a test which assesses "reasoning ability, ability to use words and vocabulary." D.D.C. received an IQ score in the "below average range", at about the "[sixteenth] percentile." Dr. Redus testified that "[D.D.C.'s] ability to recognize words appeared to be average" and that "his school records reflected that he was in regular education," which was consistent with his performance on the test. Dr. Redus also administered the Risk-Sophistication-Treatment Inventory (RSTI), "a semi-structured interview with questions designed to identify a child's level of maturity, emotionally and thinking wise and experience wise." As far as risk of dangerousness, D.D.C. was in the high offender range, meaning he had an "elevated risk of dangerousness compared to other juvenile offenders his age." Regarding emotional maturity and sophistication, "[D.D.C.'s] ability to function autonomously and make decisions for himself" was average. D.D.C. scored in the mid-range of juvenile offenders on "other questions that looked at the ability to control impulses, deal with feelings, ability to reason and evaluate decisions, evaluate the pros and cons of decisions before making the decision, before acting." In addition, D.D.C. scored in the mid-range for treatment amenability. Dr. Redus further testified that "[D.D.C.] indicated an openness and willingness to receive help and verbalize that he thought there would be benefits to him if he were to receive help." Based on D.D.C.'s statements, Dr. Redus concluded that D.D.C. was serious and sincere about wanting help because during the evaluation, D.D.C. had talked about being so angry most of his life, had trouble managing his anger, and wanted to provide a different life for his family in the future.
Dr Redus acknowledged the criticisms by Dr. Theis regarding the administration of the MMPI-A. Dr. Redus explained that the results of the MMPI-A did not constitute the main manner in which she formed her conclusions regarding D.D.C.; her evaluation was primarily based on the interview, his presentation, their interactions, and other factors. The MMPI-A results demonstrated that D.D.C. was an "angry adolescent who had problems with impulse control and who also was experiencing some depression"-a result which correlated with what Dr. Redus had been observing from D.D.C. in his self-report. Dr. Redus affirmed that even if someone had explained the MMPI-A questions to D.D.C., he appeared to answer them in a way that was consistent with what she had already observed. Dr. Redus concluded that "[D.D.C.] appeared to be . . . an adolescent who tries to present a surface, outward image of being okay and being street smart, . . . but inwardly is probably depressed, probably has feelings of inadequacy and lack of self-confidence, . . . and has some unresolved issues with some traumatic events in his life." Dr. Redus opined that "[D.D.C.'s] ability to make decisions and control impulses were only at a level that would be typical of juvenile offenders who have these problems and in comparison to an adult would probably be considered immature." Dr. Redus affirmed these findings were consistent with her assessment that D.D.C. is a high-risk offender because of his problems with impulse control and his history of fighting. Dr. Redus affirmed that, based on her training and experience, immaturity can correlate with dangerousness. Dr. Redus assessed that D.D.C. did not have an intellectual disability but was behind most children his age. In addition, in her psychological evaluation report, Dr. Redus indicated that D.D.C. "presented as being someone who understood the difference between right and wrong and that there are...
To continue reading
Request your trial