In re J.C.W.G.
| Decision Date | 12 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-19-00861-CV,04-19-00861-CV |
| Citation | 613 S.W.3d 560 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF J.C.W.G. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Linda Leeser, Leeser Howell Law Firm PLLC, 9800 Lorene Ln., San Antonio, TX 78216, Timothy A. Hootman, Attorney at Law, 2402 Pease Street, Houston, TX 77003, for Appellant.
Jessica Manojlovich, Assistant Attorney General, Cara Blossom Hanna, Assistant Attorney General, Sharon Newman Pruitt, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711, for Appellee.
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice, Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
This is an accelerated appeal under Section 56.01(h-1) of the Texas Family Code. Appellant J.C.W.G. appeals the juvenile court's order denying his plea to the jurisdiction and granting the State's petition to transfer his case to criminal court. We affirm the trial court's order.
J.C.W.G. is charged with sexually assaulting Jenny (a pseudonym) when she was thirteen and he was fourteen. Jenny did not report the sexual assault until two years later. The offense was alleged to have occurred on or about January 29, 2016, and Jenny told her mother who reported the offense to the police in July 2018.
At the time of the offense, Jenny was attending a stock show with her family and friends. J.C.W.G. was a new acquaintance of Jenny's friend, and he followed Jenny and her friends around the stock show throughout the first day of the event. Jenny said J.C.W.G. made her feel uncomfortable, and she asked her friend not to leave her alone with J.C.W.G.
On the evening of the second day, Jenny walked to the playground next to the show barn with her friends, and J.C.W.G. was there. Jenny's friends left her alone with J.C.W.G. to get soft drinks, which made Jenny uncomfortable, but she reasoned that her friends would return quickly. During her friends' absence, Jenny tried to keep space between J.C.W.G. and her, but she tripped on the play equipment, and J.C.W.G. got on top of her, pushing her down. Jenny said that she was big, but not strong and could not lift J.C.W.G. off. She tried to scream, but he covered her mouth, pushing down her pants and underwear. Jenny said that she tried to bite J.C.W.G.'s hand, and he then moved his hand to her throat and choked her until she passed out.
When Jenny revived, J.C.W.G. was removing his penis from her anus and telling her to clean herself up before the girls returned. Jenny could hear her friends talking and laughing in the distance as they walked back to the park. Jenny said she felt unsure of what to do and acted as though nothing had happened.
At home, Jenny felt disgusted with herself and showered for a long time. She cried, could not sleep, and lost her appetite. Following the assault, Jenny lost about seventy pounds. Jenny's mother also recalled that Jenny started staying in bed more and going outside less and that she lost weight, but she attributed the change to Jenny's age. Jenny's mother recalled that around that time, Jenny had feces under her fingernails. Jenny said that she was afraid to go to the bathroom and tried to dig out the feces instead. A physical exam later revealed that Jenny suffered internal and external hemorrhoids
and an anal fissure.
Jenny tried to tell her friend what happened, but the friend did not report the outcry and instead dated J.C.W.G. Jenny's friend later reported that J.C.W.G. was aggressive and abusive during their relationship.
J.C.W.G. attempted to contact Jenny over Snapchat, but Jenny blocked the communication. Jenny told her boyfriend about the assault. Around that time, J.C.W.G. also reached out to Jenny's boyfriend to find out whether Jenny had told him and to brag about the assault, claiming that he planned to do it again, and that he planned to choke Jenny to death. Jenny's boyfriend disclosed this message to his mother, who then shared the information with Jenny's mother. This disclosure led to Jenny's outcry.
When the case was presented to the Medina County Attorney's Office, the Medina County Attorney recused herself, and the Attorney General accepted the case. The State filed and mailed its original petition charging J.C.W.G. with aggravated sexual assault as well as its petition to transfer J.C.W.G. to adult criminal court under Section 54.02(a) 1 on September 21, 2018. The Medina County Court at Law judge sitting as the juvenile court, Judge Vivian Torres, scheduled the first hearing for October 3, 2018.
The parties attended two hearings prior to December 6, 2018, 2 when Judge Torres notified the parties that she was going to retire, and the newly elected judge would be taking over the case. The trial court then filed the grand jury's certification of the State's charging petition and set the next hearing for February 12, 2019.
On January 31, 2019, before the next scheduled hearing, Judge Mark Cashion of the Medina County Court at Law transferred the case to the District Court of Medina County and canceled the February 12 hearing without notifying the parties.
Between February and May of 2019, Medina County District Court Judge Camile DuBose signed warrants for the State, but she did not preside over the case, and instead recused herself because she had personal knowledge of both J.C.W.G. and Jenny.
On May 1, 2019, the Medina County District Court Administrator informed the State that a visiting judge, who was scheduled to arrive in August, would be assigned to J.C.W.G.'s case. Accordingly, the State called the court administrator in July to set an August status hearing for J.C.W.G.'s case. Soon after the State's request for a status hearing, the parties agreed to set the case for trial on the October 16, 2019 docket.
At the status hearing on August 26, 2019 3 , J.C.W.G.'s counsel advised that they planned to change lead counsel, but that J.C.W.G. would be ready for trial on October 16, 2019. On October 7, 2019, J.C.W.G. moved to continue the trial for fifty days. The State did not object. The trial was reset to December 18, 2019.
On October 24, 2019, the State asked the district court to set a certification hearing for its petition to transfer the case to criminal court for November 14, 2019.
On November 6, 2019, the trial court completed its social evaluation of J.C.W.G. through the juvenile probation department, as required by Section 54.02(a), based on the pending petition to transfer J.C.W.G.'s case to criminal court.
J.C.W.G. turned eighteen on November 8, 2019.
On November 13, the court reset the transfer certification hearing to November 25, 2019.
On November 20, 2019, J.C.W.G. moved to dismiss his case, claiming that the State did not exercise due diligence to adjudicate him before his eighteenth birthday.
At the hearing on November 25, 2019, the court heard J.C.W.G.'s plea to the jurisdiction and denied it, finding that the State had exercised due diligence and that it was not practicable to adjudicate J.C.W.G.'s case prior to his eighteenth birthday. The court deferred the transfer certification hearing until December 9, 2019.
On December 9, 2019, the trial court heard the State's certification to transfer J.C.W.G. from juvenile court to criminal court and granted the transfer.
J.C.W.G. appeals the trial court's order denying his plea to the jurisdiction and granting the State's motion to transfer the case to criminal court.
J.C.W.G. presents five issues: (1) the State did not exercise due diligence to complete proceedings before J.C.W.G. turned eighteen; (2) the State improperly proceeded under Texas Family Code Section 54.02(j) at the transfer hearing after filing its original petition under Section 54.02(a) ; (3) it was not out of the State's control to go forward with proceedings in juvenile court as required by Section 54.02(j)(4) ; (4) there was no proper notice of the transfer hearing as required by Section 54.02(k) ; and (5) the trial court's transfer order fails to state necessary reasons for transfer under Section 54.02(h). We will address each issue separately.
In his first issue, J.C.W.G. contends the evidence was legally insufficient to support the juvenile court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on a finding that the "prosecuting attorney exercised due diligence in an attempt to complete the proceeding before" Appellant turned eighteen as required by Section 51.0412(3). The State responds that "the delay in Appellant's proceedings [was] not attributable to the State, but instead due to circumstances affecting the juvenile court and due to Appellant's actions," i.e., J.C.W.G.'s motion to continue the transfer hearing to a date after his eighteenth birthday.
At issue in this case is whether the State was diligent in moving forward with its prosecution of J.C.W.G.'s case and able to reasonably explain delays. See In re B.R.H. , 426 S.W.3d 163, 166–67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). "Diligence is usually a question of fact" for the trial court to decide. See id. at 168. We review the trial court's findings for an abuse of discretion and "defer to the trial court's findings unless the record contains no evidence to support them." Id. (). "Even if we would have decided the matter differently, we may not disturb the trial court's decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable." Id.
A juvenile court has exclusive, original jurisdiction over all proceedings involving a person who has engaged in delinquent conduct as a result of acts committed before age seventeen. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.02, 51.04 (West 2011). A juvenile court does not lose jurisdiction when a juvenile turns eighteen, but its jurisdiction becomes limited. The juvenile court retains limited jurisdiction to either transfer the case to an appropriate cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re C.C.C.
...light most favorable to the court's findings to determine whether there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support them. In re J.C.W.G., 613 S.W.3d at 569. "Under factual-sufficiency challenge, we consider all the evidence presented to determine if the court's finding is so against the......
-
In re N.G.W.
...attempting to complete the proceeding before the juvenile's eighteenth or nineteenth birthday. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.0412 ; In re J.C.W.G. , 613 S.W.3d 560, 566 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020, no pet.) ; In re B.R.H. , 426 S.W.3d 163, 167 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). The q......
- In re N.G.W.
-
In re W.C.R.
...was diligent in moving forward with its prosecution of appellant's case and able to reasonably explain delays, if any.[4] See In re J.C.W.G., 613 S.W.3d 560, 566 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2020, no pet.); Moore v. State, 446 S.W.3d 47, 52 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014), aff'd, 532 S.W.3d ......