In re D.O.R.
| Decision Date | 13 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-20-00036-CV,06-20-00036-CV |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF D.O.R., A JUVENILE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the County Court at Law Cass County, Texas
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and Marion,* JJ.
On January 9, 2015, D.O.R.1 pled true to and was adjudicated by the trial court for delinquent conduct after he committed capital murder. The trial court committed D.O.R. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) for a determinate sentence of twenty-five years. Although D.O.R. made some efforts to do the right things during his time with the TJJD, the trial court transferred his case to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) so that D.O.R. could serve the rest of his sentence.
On appeal, D.O.R. argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it transferred him to the TDCJ and (2) the clerk's record had no pleading or document by which the TJJD referred the case to the juvenile court. Because we find that the evidence supported the trial court's ruling and that the juvenile court received notice from the TJJD of a need for a release or transfer hearing, we affirm the trial court's transfer order.
"Where a juvenile has been adjudicated and committed to TJJD and subsequently is transferred to TDCJ[], we review the trial court's order for an abuse of discretion." In re M.C., 502 S.W.3d 852, 854 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, pet. denied) (). "In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we review the entire record to determine if the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to any guiding principles or rules." In re A.C., No. 10-14-00364-CV, 2015 WL 6437696, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 22, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.)(citing In re D.L., 198 S.W.3d 228, 229 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied)). "The trial court's decision will be upheld if the record contains some evidence to support it." Id. ().
Under the Texas Human Resources Code, a juvenile serving a determinate sentence for a capital offense must serve at least ten years of his sentence in the TJJD. TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 245.051(c)(1). Yet, "[o]nce a juvenile attains the age of nineteen, the TJJD loses control over that juvenile."2 M.C., 502 S.W.3d at 855 (citing TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 245.151(e)). "Because of [D.O.R.'s] determinate sentence, the trial court could either release [him] to parole under TDCJ[]'s supervision or transfer him to TDCJ[] for continued confinement." Id. "[A] transfer/release hearing conducted under Section 54.11 is a 'second chance hearing' that gives juveniles—who have previously been sentenced to a determinate number of years—a second chance to persuade the court that they should not be imprisoned." In re A.V., No. 11-18-00135-CV, 2020 WL 2836432, at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland May 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting In re D.L., 198 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied)).
M.C., 502 S.W.3d at 856-57 (quoting TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.11(k)). "Within its discretion, the trial court may assign different weights to the factors it considers, and the court need not consider every factor." In re H.C., No. 02-15-00149-CV, 2016 WL 354297, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 28, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).
At the second-chance hearing, there was adequate evidence to support the trial court's decision to transfer D.O.R. to the TDCJ. First, Jay Womack, a Texas Ranger employed by the State of Texas,3 testified that, in June 2014, he was called by Cass County Sheriff's Department Chief Deputy Roy Barker, asking him to investigate the murders of David Rankin (David) and Terry Rankin (Terry).4 Womack was first told that D.O.R. said that David shot Terry and that D.O.R. was able to get the gun away from David and shoot David.5 When he arrived at the scene, Womack saw a man dressed in boxer shorts laying on his back in the kitchen.6 Womack stated that there was blood around the dining room and in the kitchen area. Womack also saw a child,7 dressed in short pants and a shirt, laying on the floor in the hallway that goes into the dining room.8 Womack reviewed photographs of D.O.R. that showed a wound on his arm.According to Womack, D.O.R.'s wound did not look like a defensive wound but, instead, had probably been self-inflicted.
Womack had a chance to listen to part of the 9-1-1 call that D.O.R. made after the shootings. Womack said that D.O.R. sounded calm and "monotone," which in his opinion, was unusual because most 9-1-1 callers who just shot someone sound "upset." "It's a traumatic event for anybody." Womack testified that D.O.R. did not sound remorseful during the 9-1-1 call and testified, at one point, that D.O.R. was "trying to play the hero like, I shot my dad because he shot my little brother." According to Womack, a few months later, D.O.R. confessed to a family member that he had shot both David and Terry. The family member relayed the information to the police, and upon its receipt, an arrest warrant was issued for D.O.R. In Womack's opinion, he did not believe that five and a half years in TJJD was sufficient punishment for D.O.R., stating, "I think there should be additional time." Womack also testified that, based on his experience in law enforcement, people who commit violent crimes generally become repeat offenders.
Alanna Bennett, a court liaison for TJJD, explained that she attended juvenile hearings and also relayed the juvenile justice system's recommendations on determinate sentences. Bennett testified that D.O.R. had a history of having ADHD and that he needed psychiatric services but that his main treatment need was for violent offending because of his offense. Bennett explained the different treatment levels available to juvenile offenders and that D.O.R. had completed the Violent Offender Program. Following the completion of that program, D.O.R. entered the Capital and Serious Violent Offender Treatment Program (Program), which is typically done closer to the time of a juvenile's release. Bennett testified,
Bennett also explained the "Stages" that the juveniles go through during their confinement in the TJJD, beginning with Stage One and culminating in the "Stage YES" program. According to Bennett, D.O.R. was "moving right along in the program[s]." Bennett said that, while D.O.R. was waiting to begin the Program, he became antsy, aggressive, irritated, and aggravated with the staff. During his time in the TJJD, D.O.R. had nine behavior incidents,9 none of which were major, and six referrals to the regulations and safety unit. Bennett explained that D.O.R. had not had any behavioral incidents since 2015. D.O.R. earned his G.E.D. in August 2017, and he earned vocational certificates as well. In addition, D.O.R. participated in several off-campus programs, including equine-assisted therapy.
Bennett then explained that, during a juvenile's confinement, the TJJD must decide whether to recommend parole for a juvenile by using a set of guidelines and requirements. Bennett testified that D.O.R. did not meet the necessary requirements for parole. Yet, she made a recommendation to the trial court that D.O.R. be paroled. That said, because Bennett was concerned about D.O.R. going back home to live with his adoptive mother, she recommended that he reside in a halfway house. She also recommended that D.O.R. be placed on the highest level of supervision for at least one year. According to Bennett, the recommended supervision basically involved meeting with a parole officer, working, and completing counseling, all while on a very strict schedule. She also said that TDCJ parole did not have to follow her recommendations.
Danuta Godlewski, a psychologist for the TJJD during the relevant period,10 testified that she prepared evaluations and recommendations relating to eligibility for parole and that she conducted group and individual counseling sessions with the juveniles at the TJJD. Godlewski explained that, after interviewing D.O.R. for two days, she completed her psychological evaluation.11 During her interview with D.O.R., Godlewski learned that D.O.R. had been adopted when he was about four years old. D.O.R.'s adoptive mom, who was also his grandmother, was employed as a nurse, went to school when she was not working, and had a substance abuse problem. D.O.R. reported that he did not have the best relationship with his adoptive father, David, who was also D.O.R.'s step-grandfather and one of the victims in this case. Godlewski said that D.O.R. did not recall the family having financial problems nor was he subjected to neglect or sexual abuse. Even so, D.O.R. told Godlewski that he was physically abused, explaining that David "whooped" him and pushed...
To continue reading
Request your trial