In the Matter of J. C. M. v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued June 12, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-23-00584-CV

———————————

IN THE MATTER OF J. C. M.

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2021-00643J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant J.C.M.1 challenges the juvenile court’s order transferring him

from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) to serve the remainder of his

sentence for capital murder. We affirm.

1

Pursuant to TEX. FAM. CODE § 56.01(j), the juvenile is identified by his initials.

Background

In December 2021, J.C.M. signed a stipulation judicially confessing to

capital murder that occurred in December 2020. J.C.M. entered the stipulation

without an agreed recommendation as to the court’s disposition of the determinate

sentence. The underlying offense, which J.C.M. committed at age 17, involved

J.C.M. and another youth confronting the complainant before J.C.M. shot and

killed him. J.C.M. left the scene with the complainant’s cash and marijuana. The

trial court found J.C.M. delinquent, and he received a 25-year determinate

sentence. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03 (capital murder); see also TEX. FAM. CODE

§ 53.045(a)(2) (providing that capital murder is eligible for determinate

sentencing). J.C.M. was committed to TJJD.

A. Early Transfer Hearing February 2023

In February 2023, TJJD sought a transfer hearing, recommending J.C.M.’s

early transfer to TDCJ-ID because of disciplinary issues and assaultive behavior.

See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 244.014(a) (stating TJJD may refer juvenile to

juvenile court for transfer to TDCJ if 16-to-19-year-old juvenile’s conduct

“indicates that the welfare of the community requires the transfer,” and he is

serving but has not completed his sentence). The juvenile court held a release or

transfer hearing pursuant to Section 54.11 of the Texas Family Code. See TEX.

FAM. CODE § 54.11. J.C.M. was present and represented by counsel. At the end of

2

the hearing in J.C.M.’s case, the juvenile court could either (1) order him returned

to TJJD; or (2) transfer him to the TDCJ-ID to complete his sentence. See id.

§ 54.11(i).

TJJD court liaison Alana Bennett testified at the hearing. The court also

admitted her report and documentation into evidence. Bennett stated that J.C.M.

was in the 12th grade and was working toward a welding certification. During his

time in TJJD, J.C.M. had 16 behavioral incidents, 10 of which were referrals to the

regulation and safety unit.2 Twelve of J.C.M.’s incidents were major rule violations

proven through eight due process hearings. Bennett stated that most of the

incidents were for assaultive behavior. Bennett testified that TJJD recommended

J.C.M.’s early transfer to TDCJ-ID because J.C.M.’s assaultive violations raised

concerns that his pattern of violent behavior would continue upon his release to the

community.

Bennett testified that in August 2022, after getting in several fights, J.C.M.

was sent to the Redirect Program at TJJD’s Evins Regional Center. Bennett

testified that the Redirect Program is a specialized program to teach youth how to

deal with aggression they encounter when they arrive at TJJD. J.C.M. successfully

completed the program. In October 2022, after completing the Redirect Program,

2

The regulation safety unit is a self-contained program for youth who exhibit

behavior that is assaultive or disruptive to the point where they need to be

removed from the general population.

3

J.C.M. was sent to another facility for a transition period. J.C.M. got in a fight on

his second day at the facility. He fought with someone he knew prior to TJJD.

Bennett testified that J.C.M. had not had any assaultive behavior incidents since

October 22, 2022.

As to treatment programs, Bennett testified that in January 2023, J.C.M.

started alcohol and drug treatment and aggression replacement training, and he was

making progress in those programs. J.C.M. also started TJJD’s Capital and Serious

Violent Offender Treatment Program (“COG”) in November 2022. J.C.M. was

enrolled in school and would receive his diploma upon completing one additional

course. He was working on his welding certificate and had a job in the cafeteria.

He also participated in the track team.

Bennett testified about J.C.M.’s psychological evaluation completed in

2022. The results of the evaluation included concerns that J.C.M.’s violent

outbursts and historical factors contributed to his ongoing violent choices. Some of

the risk factors noted included J.C.M.’s poor compliance with community at

juvenile detention, a poor prognosis for treatment amenability at TJJD and on

parole, limited motivation, and that J.C.M. had suggested a survivalist and callous

point of view.

She testified that TJJD recommended J.C.M.’s transfer to TDCJ considering

his limited progress, the gravity of his underlying offense, and the lack of time to

4

safely determine whether J.C.M. would succeed in the community. Bennett

acknowledged that the TJJD decision was made in October 2022, and since then,

J.C.M. had the opportunity to participate in treatment programs. She acknowledged

that between October 2022 and the February 2023 hearing, J.C.M.’s behavior had

changed, and if allowed to stay at TJJD, J.C.M. could complete more rehabilitative

programming.

Dr. Nichole Kuck, a psychologist at TJJD, testified on behalf of J.C.M. that

she began working with J.C.M. in November 2022 as part of the COG program.

She stated that the COG program is the most intensive treatment program offered

at TJJD. It is reserved for those that commit the most serious offenses. The

program is designed to reduce risk factors associated with violent offending. She

noted that J.C.M. had not started any specialized treatment at TJJD at the time

TJJD sought his early transfer to TDCJ. By the time of the transfer hearing, J.C.M.

had completed half of the COG program. According to Dr. Kuck, J.C.M. was a

positive influence on peers in the program and demonstrated maturity and

amenability to treatment.

Dr. Lauren Washington, a mental health specialist and J.C.M.’s assigned

dorm clinician, testified that J.C.M. would benefit from continuing his treatment

program at TJJD. Dr. Washington added that J.C.M.’s mother died days before the

transfer hearing, and in her opinion, J.C.M. would benefit from ongoing therapy.

5

She testified that although J.C.M. initially was not receptive to treatment, he now

was amenable to individual therapy.

At the conclusion of the hearing, J.C.M.’s counsel argued that early transfer

was premature because at the time he engaged in assaultive behavior at TJJD,

J.C.M. had not participated in any treatment programs, and since admitted to the

programs, J.C.M. showed behavioral progress. The court denied TJJD’s request for

early transfer, acknowledged the progress J.C.M. had made, and postponed a final

determination until July, shortly before J.C.M.’s 19th birthday.

B. Second Transfer Hearing July 10, 2023

The juvenile court held a second transfer or release hearing on July 10, 2023.

J.C.M. was nearing his 19th birthday, at which point the juvenile court, at TJJD’s

request, must determine whether a juvenile should be released on parole

supervision or transferred to TDCJ-ID to serve the remainder of his sentence. See

TEX. FAM. CODE § 54.11; TEX. HUM. RES. CODE §§ 244.014, 245.051.

At the hearing, Bennett, a TJJD court liaison, recounted J.C.M.’s behavioral

difficulties and documented incidents of rule violations during his time at TJJD.

Most recently, and since the last transfer hearing, he had assaulted another youth

causing bodily injury.

Bennett testified that as far as parole or transfer to TDCJ-ID, the TJJD

recommends transferring J.C.M. to TDCJ-ID. She explained that TJJD believed

6

J.C.M. had a “superficial rehabilitation.” Despite completing treatments, he

engaged in additional assaultive behavior. TJJD remained concerned for the safety

of the community if J.C.M. was paroled, given the original nature of J.C.M.’s

underlying offense. Bennett recalled that J.C.M.’s underlying offense involved a

drug transaction for marijuana and that J.C.M. shot the victim, then left with the

victim’s money and marijuana.

On cross-examination, Bennett testified that, since the last hearing in

February, J.C.M. completed the COG program, drug treatment, aggression

replacement training, and the “New Freedom Group,” which is a gang intervention

program. J.C.M. earned a vocational welding certificate and his high school

diploma. The court admitted into evidence an updated report and documentation

from TJJD.

Dr. Kuck, TJJD psychologist, testified that she leads the COG program and

had worked with J.C.M. since November 2022. Dr. Kuck explained that since the

last transfer hearing, J.C.M. completed the offender history portion of the COG

program where he spent several days talking about all the crimes he had

committed, whether noticed or not, and recognized the harm he had caused and its

impact on victims. As part of this, he wrote letters to everyone he hurt. Dr. Kuck

explained that the letters remain unsent but are part of the process of J.C.M.

understanding the harm his actions caused.

7

Dr. Kuck described J.C.M. as a supportive leader with a positive presence in

the COG group. Dr. Kuck testified that J.C.M. is open in therapy and would benefit

from continued individual therapy. Dr. Kuck testified that after the May 28, 2023

fight, she met with J.C.M. in the regulation safety unit and helped him with repair

counseling following the incident. According to Dr. Kuck, right before the fight,

J.C.M. had been advised that the psychologist who evaluated him recommended

his transfer to prison rather than parole. Dr Kuck testified that J.C.M. was self-

sabotaging in that moment, and that afterward, he was upset that he could have

jeopardized his future.

Ron’neshia Spears, a TJJD case manager, testified that she meets with

J.C.M. weekly. She described J.C.M. as a “very good kid” who when motivated

and focused is a positive leader. She testified that J.C.M. suffered hardship when

his mother died earlier in the year, yet he completed several programs and obtained

his high school diploma.

Leroy Ross testified that he is a correctional officer with TJJD who has

known J.C.M. for two years. He testified that he made a concerted effort to get to

know J.C.M. Ross testified that during the time he’s known J.C.M., J.C.M.’s

demeanor changed, as J.C.M. has calmed down. J.C.M. now participates in and

leads groups in the dorm.

8

Russell Hall, director of the youth home and services program for Houston

Revision program testified that the program could help J.C.M. if he was paroled.

The program would provide J.C.M. with transitional housing, medical care, mental

health counseling, and job placement.

After closing arguments, the trial court entered an order transferring J.C.M.

to the TDCJ-ID to serve out the rest of his determinate sentence.

DISCUSSION

J.C.M. appeals from the trial court’s transfer order. He argues that the trial

court abused its discretion by transferring him because he had shown progress

toward rehabilitation, including taking advantage of programs and services offered

by TJJD, and because the record reflected that he would have outside support if

paroled.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s decision to transfer a juvenile from TJJD to TDCJ-

ID for an abuse of discretion. In re R.G., 994 S.W.2d 309, 312 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). In general, in this context, if some evidence

supports the decision, there is no abuse of discretion. Id.; accord In re C.D.T., 98

S.W.3d 280, 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

9

Applicable Law

A transfer or release hearing is not a trial; rather it is a “second chance

hearing” that occurs after the juvenile court has sentenced a juvenile to a

determinate term of commitment. In re D.L., 198 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2006, pet. denied). The Family Code provides the guiding principles

that govern the proceeding. In determining whether the juvenile should be released

on parole supervision or transferred to TDCJ for completion of his sentence, the

juvenile court may consider several factors, including: (1) the experiences and

character of the juvenile before and after his commitment to TJJD; (2) the nature of

the offense for which the juvenile was adjudicated and the manner in which the

offense was committed; (3) the abilities of the juvenile to contribute to society;

(4) the protection afforded the victim or any member of the victim’s family; (5) the

recommendations of TJJD, the county juvenile board, the local juvenile probation

department, and the prosecuting attorney; (6) the best interest of the juvenile; and

(7) any other relevant factors. TEX. FAM. CODE § 54.11(k). The trial court need not

consider all these factors, and it may assign different weights to the factors it does

consider. In re R.G., 994 S.W.2d at 312. The court may consider written reports

and documents from a variety of sources, including employees of TJJD. TEX. FAM.

CODE § 54.11(d).

10

Analysis

The question before us is whether some evidence supports the trial court’s

decision to transfer J.C.M. to TDCJ-ID. If some evidence supports its decision,

then the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Some evidence supports the trial court’s decision. J.C.M. was adjudicated in

December 2021 after confessing to committing capital murder in December 2020.

When J.C.M. committed the offense at age seventeen, he used a firearm. The

offense involved J.C.M. shooting the complainant and taking cash and marijuana

from him. Neither side disputes the seriousness of the criminal offense for which

J.C.M. was adjudicated. At the time of the second transfer hearing, J.C.M. had

completed about 27 months of his 25-year sentence. The seriousness of the offense

and brevity of J.C.M.’s commitment is some evidence supporting the trial court’s

transfer decision. See In re L.G.G., 398 S.W.3d 852, 862 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi-Edinburg 2012, no pet.) (noting juvenile court could, within its discretion,

recognize that juvenile had served less than five years for a serious, violent offense

and that “goals of punishment, accountability, and the protection of the community

would be better served” by transfer); In re J.J., 276 S.W.3d 171, 180 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2008, pet. denied) (holding juvenile court did not abuse discretion given,

inter alia, evidence that juvenile had been adjudicated delinquent for violent crimes

involving deadly weapons).

11

The record included evidence that after his commitment, J.C.M. had several

behavioral violations at TJJD. According to TJJD, J.C.M. had 23 documented

incidents, nine of which resulted in due process hearings where the violations were

proven true. Two months before the second transfer hearing, he engaged in violent

behavior, assaulting and causing bodily injury to another youth.

The record showed that J.C.M.’s behavior had improved once he

participated in TJJD programming and that he completed the rehabilitation

programs offered to him. During his TJJD commitment, J.C.M. earned his high

school diploma, worked in the cafeteria, participated in track, and earned a welding

certification. Despite this evidence, the trial court, as factfinder, could have placed

more weight on the evidence of J.C.M.’s delinquency and concerning conduct in

custody. See In re A.E.B., No. 01-19-00517-CV, 2021 WL 2931438, at *12 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 13, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (observing trial

court was entitled to give greater weight to significant history of delinquency and

delinquent conduct that led to juvenile commitment than successful completion of

program for serious violent offenders while in custody).

J.C.M. argues that the trial court abused its discretion because he had

accepted responsibility for both the underlying offense and “numerous other

unadjudicated acts that he was never charged with.” J.C.M. further argues that his

12

behavior showed recent improvement, and there was at least one program that

would offer him assistance on parole.

J.C.M. does not truly contest that some evidence supports the trial court’s

decision, but he argues that the evidence supporting the decision is outweighed by

other evidence. This is an argument akin to factual sufficiency, and we have

rejected the notion that transfer decisions are reviewed for factual sufficiency. See

D.G.W. v. State, No. 01-22-00697-CV, 2024 WL 86501, at *4 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (discussing

incompatibility of juvenile’s factual sufficiency argument with applicable standard

of review); see also R.G., 994 S.W.2d at 312 (noting that we may not reverse

merely because we disagree with transfer decision, as long as decision is within

trial court’s “discretionary authority”).

After reviewing the record, we hold the trial court did not abuse its

discretion. See R.G., 994 S.W.2d at 312–31 (holding trial court did not abuse

discretion in transferring juvenile to TDCJ-ID despite evidence that juvenile

obtained G.E.D., successfully completed programs at facility, and improved in

behavior over time).

13

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s order transferring J.C.M. to the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Susanna Dokupil

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.

14