By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Certification report was not deficient for
failing to address the four certification factors (00-3-08)
On June 22, 2000, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a certification
report was not deficient merely because it failed to address the four factors
the juvenile court is required to consider when certifying a juvenile to
criminal court.
00-3-08. Vasquez v. State, UNPUBLISHED, No. 09-99-00664-CR, 2000 WL 795328, 2000
Tex.App.Lexis ___ (Tex.App.--Austin 6/22/00)[Texas Juvenile Law 135 (4th Ed.
1996)].
Facts: Appellant Carlos Manuel Vasquez pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing
him of aggravated assault. See Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 1994). The
district court adjudged him guilty and imposed sentence of imprisonment for
fifteen years.
Held: Affirmed.
Opinion Text: Appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time of the offense,
contends the juvenile court did not properly waive its jurisdiction and transfer
him to district court for criminal proceedings. See Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.02
(West Supp.2000). The State responds that appellant waived this contention by
failing to appeal the transfer order. The State's argument overlooks the
adoption effective January 1, 1996, of Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.47.
See Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 44.47 (West Supp.2000). Under this statute, the
appeal of a juvenile court transfer order is taken in conjunction with the
appeal of the subsequent criminal conviction. See id. art. 44.47(b). The
defendant may raise any claim that could have been raised on a direct appeal of
the transfer order under prior law. See id. art. 44.47(d). Appellant's point of
error was not waived.
Before conducting a transfer hearing, a juvenile court must order and obtain a
complete diagnostic study, social evaluation, and full investigation of the
child, his circumstances, and the circumstances of the alleged offense. See
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 54.02(d) (West Supp.2000). Appellant contends the
"certification investigation report" prepared in this cause was
inadequate because it did not address the factors governing the juvenile court's
determination to waive jurisdiction. In determining whether to waive its
jurisdiction, a juvenile court must consider (1) whether the alleged offense was
against person or property; (2) the sophistication and maturity of the child;
(3) the record and previous history of the child; and (4) the protection of the
public and the likelihood of rehabilitation of the child within the juvenile
system. See id. § 54.02(f). Appellant cites no authority mandating that the
prehearing report specifically address the subsection (f) factors.
The certification investigation report in this cause contains a juvenile
probation officer's summary, a psychological evaluation, a psychiatric
evaluation, a physical examination workup, and appellant's elementary school
record. The report contains descriptions of the alleged offense and summaries of
appellant's record and previous history. The psychological and psychiatric
evaluations discuss appellant's maturity and contain information that is
relevant to the determination of appellant's rehabilitative potential. The
report does not specifically discuss the procedures, services, and facilities
available within the juvenile system, but the juvenile court would be expected
to be familiar with them. In any event, the adequacy of a pretransfer diagnostic
report is to be determined by the juvenile court, and its acceptance of the
report will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of
discretion. See In re J.C.J., 900 S.W.2d 753, 754 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1995, no
writ). No abuse of discretion is shown here.
The juvenile court's order waiving jurisdiction states that the court considered
each of the subsection (f) factors. The court specifically found that appellant
has the sophistication and maturity to intelligently and voluntarily waive his
rights and to aid in his defense, that the offense was committed against the
person of another, and that "there is little, if any prospect of adequate
protection of the public and likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation" of
appellant within the juvenile system. Appellant does not challenge these
findings. Point of error two is overruled.