In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00208-CV ___________________________
IN RE: THE COMMITMENT OF RAUL VILLEGAS GARZA
On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. C2022596
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Bassel and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Raul Villegas Garza challenges his civil commitment as a sexually
violent predator, see Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. Ch. 841 (the SVP Act), raising a
single issue in which he argues there was legally insufficient evidence to support the
jury’s verdict that he has a behavioral abnormality making him likely to engage in
future predatory acts of sexual violence. Because the evidence is sufficient to support
the jury’s verdict, we will affirm.
I. INTRODUCTION
The State filed a petition to civilly commit Garza as an SVP based on his
previous convictions and sentences on four counts of indecency with a child by
contact under Section 21.11(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code. All four are considered
sexually violent offenses for purposes of the SVP Act.1 See id. § 841.002(8)(A). Garza
had also been subsequently convicted of one count of tampering with or fabricating
evidence under Texas Penal Code Section 37.03, which is not a sexually violent
offense for purposes of the SVP Act, but which was a factor in the analysis of his risk
Garza was convicted by a jury of two offenses of indecency with a child by 1
contact against each of two child victims, four offenses in total, in 2004. He was sentenced to 20 years’ confinement for each offense, to be served concurrently.
2 to reoffend due to its relation to his previous indecency convictions.2 See infra Section
II.A.
Besides Garza, only one other witness testified at the jury trial: the State’s
expert, Dr. Jason D. Dunham, Ph.D. Dr. Dunham testified that Garza is a repeat
sexually violent offender and suffers from a behavioral abnormality that predisposes
him to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence. In contrast, Garza testified that he
did not commit any of the offenses for which he was convicted, will not commit
future offenses, and is and always has been incapable of sexually assaulting anyone.
The jury rejected Garza’s contention, answering “Yes” to the charge question,
“Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that [Garza] is a sexually violent predator?”
The trial court then ordered Garza civilly committed in accordance with Section
841.081 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, and this appeal followed.
II. BACKGROUND
At a trial on a State’s petition seeking civil commitment, the jury shall
determine whether they believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is an SVP.
Id. § 841.062(a). A person is an SVP if that person “(1) is a repeat sexually violent
In 2014, while incarcerated for his previous offenses, Garza was convicted by 2
a jury of tampering with or fabricating evidence and sentenced him to 20 years’ confinement, concurrent with his previously imposed sentence.
3 offender;3 and (2) suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes the person likely
to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.” Id. § 841.003(a)(1), (2). “Behavioral
abnormality” is statutorily defined as “a congenital or acquired condition that, by
affecting a person’s emotional or volitional capacity, predisposes the person to
commit a sexually violent offense, to the extent that the person becomes a menace to
the health and safety of another person.” Id. § 841.002(2).
A commitment proceeding under the SVP Act is the rare civil proceeding that
incorporates the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof typical of criminal
cases. See id. § 841.062; In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637, 639–41 (Tex. 2005).
Legal-sufficiency review in civil cases with this burden is consistent with review in
criminal cases: the reviewing court must determine “whether, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re
Commitment of Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d 665, 674–75 (Tex. 2020) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979)).
In addition to testimony, the evidence at trial consisted of Dr. Dunham’s
curriculum vitae and the penitentiary packet containing judgments from Garza’s four
3 A repeat sexually violent predator is a person who is convicted of more than one sexually violent offense for which a sentence is imposed for at least one. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.003(b).
4 convictions for indecency with a child by contact and his conviction for tampering
with or fabricating evidence.
A. Dr. Dunham’s Testimony
Dr. Dunham is a licensed forensic psychologist. His decades’ long practice
consists of evaluations and consultations in legal proceedings, specializing in sex
offender evaluations. At the time of trial, he had performed 321 evaluations in sex
offender cases in Texas.
In conducting civil commitment evaluations, Dr. Dunham reviews an
individual’s records, interviews the individual, conducts testing, and reviews test
results to evaluate the individual’s risk of reoffending. Dr. Dunham testified that in
evaluating Garza, he used methodology that accords with his training as a forensic
psychologist and that he believes is within the accepted standards in the field of
forensic psychology.
After reviewing Garza’s pertinent records, Dr. Dunham prepared a profile in
preparation for his first interview with Garza, then honed his opinion as he received
new information. Dr. Dunham evaluated Garza using a clinically adjusted actuarial
approach incorporating the Static-99R, an actuarial test, and adjusted for observed
behaviors that were not reflected in the test.
Dr. Dunham interviewed Garza twice. The first interview lasted approximately
90 minutes, which Dr. Dunham considered adequate to conduct an initial evaluation.
Based on his review of the records and his first interview with Garza, Dr. Dunham
5 formed the belief, based upon his training, education, and experience, that Garza has
a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual
violence. After receiving additional information about unindicted and unadjudicated
allegations and other alleged victims, Dr. Dunham met with Garza a second time,
about a year later. His initial beliefs remained unchanged after the second interview.
Based upon his education, training, experience, and methodology used, Dr.
Dunham determined that Garza suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes
him likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence. More specifically, Dr.
Dunham found in his document review and interviews that Garza suffers from the
behavioral abnormality of paraphilic disorder, a chronic sexually deviant attraction to
prepubescent and pubescent girls, and shows traits of antisocial personality disorder.4
1. Convictions for Sexual Offenses
Dr. Dunham reviewed records related to Garza’s four convictions for felony
indecency with a child by contact, against two victims. By way of background, Garza
met the mother of the two victims in November and married her on Christmas day,
two months later. In a subsequent deposition, Garza explained that he married
4 Antisocial Personality Disorder is a pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, indicated by one or more factors including the following: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by frequently performing acts that are grounds for arrest; deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying; impulsivity; consistent irresponsibility; and lack of remorse. Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 301.7 (5th ed. 2013).
6 because he wanted to be a father and that he liked children and wanted to help his
wife raise her children.
Within six weeks of the marriage, Garza’s third, Garza sexually offended
against the older of his two victims by touching her breast and causing her to touch
his penis. Documents Dr. Dunham reviewed indicated that Garza also kissed her and
put his tongue in her mouth, although this did not form a basis for Garza’s two
convictions related to this victim.
Around the same time, Garza also offended against this victim’s younger sister.
Garza rubbed his body on her body and also touched her anus. Documents Dr.
Dunham reviewed also indicated that Garza kissed her with his tongue, although,
again, this did not form the basis for Garza’s two convictions related to the younger
victim. Because the offenses were not isolated events, but rather occurred over the
course of a week, Dr. Dunham considered them to indicate a heightened risk to
reoffend.
Dr. Dunham reviewed deposition testimony by Garza that raised concerns with
him that Garza’s actions included not just sexual contact, but also “grooming”
behavior. According to Dr. Dunham, grooming––the process of setting up an
offense and making an opportunity to offend more likely to happen––is a factor to be
considered in assessing the risk to reoffend. Dr. Dunham pointed to other evidence
that, in his opinion, also showed that Garza had pursued a woman with young girls to
get access to them. Dr. Dunham explained that Garza engaged in this grooming
7 process, by first marrying their mother to get access to the girls, and then by
grooming the girls by sitting on the bed and talking to them, then talking about sex,
and then rubbing the older victim’s breast while applying a poultice to treat a cold.
At Garza’s criminal trial, the older victim said that Garza told her that he
wanted her to be his mistress, that he wanted to take her to a hotel to have sex, and
that she would not get pregnant because of his inability to have children. See infra
Section II.A.6. The younger victim said that Garza told her that he found her
“sexier” than her older sister and that she had a “better built body” than her older
sister.
2. Unadjudicated Sexual Offenses
Dr. Dunham also reviewed records reflecting unadjudicated sexual offenses
Garza allegedly committed. In those records Dr. Dunham reviewed testimony from
other girls who came forward to talk about what they alleged Garza had done to
them.
In that review, Dr. Dunham considered testimony from a member of Garza’s
family who had testified during Garza’s criminal trial for the indecency offenses that
Garza had abused her multiple times when she was between the ages of 11 and 16.
She alleged that over that five-year period Garza had kissed her with his tongue and
touched her chest and genitals and told her he wanted to have sex with her. This
8 unindicted offense represents the earliest instance and discovery of Garza’s sexual
deviancy of which Dr. Dunham was aware.5
Another member of Garza’s family testified at his criminal trial that he sexually
assaulted her in a church bathroom when she was ten years old. She reported the
assault, and Child Protective Services investigated the allegations. Although Garza
was not charged with a criminal offense,6 his family members were aware of the
accusations and confronted him about them.7
Additionally, Dr. Dunham reviewed testimony from Garza’s indecency trial
related to a third prior victim of an unindicted offense, which occurred sometime
between the two unindicted family-member offenses and the indecency offenses for
which Garza was later convicted. In that situation, Garza romantically pursued the
third victim’s mother, his second wife, and married her after a short courtship. The
mother testified during Garza’s later trial that Garza touched her young daughter on
the “bottom” and kissed her. After this discovery, the mother and Garza divorced,
and the mother filed a protective order against Garza.
5 Garza’s alleged sexual contact with this family member was discovered by adult members of his family who informed authorities. 6 The grand jury considered the charge but did not indict Garza. 7 According to trial testimony, when an adult family member learned of the allegations against these two family-member victims, she slapped Garza and told him, “Do not contact my family. I will call the police.”
9 Dr. Dunham believed that this offense showed a similar “grooming” pattern to
the offenses for which Garza was subsequently convicted—pursuing a victim’s
mother romantically, marrying her after a short time, and then offending against the
minor child very soon thereafter.
In Dr. Dunham’s opinion, these offenses were examples of manipulative
conduct demonstrating antisocial behaviors and an increased likelihood of
reoffending. He observed that Garza’s actions were indicative of lifelong behaviors
consistent with paraphilia, a sexual attraction to prepubescent and pubescent girls.
Because most sexual offenders do not reoffend after the point of first
“detection”— discovery of their offenses by others—Dr. Dunham considered the
family’s confrontation and CPS’s official investigation to constitute detection of
Garza’s offenses against his family members, even absent an indictment. The
subsequent unindicted offense against the daughter of his second wife also
constituted recidivism, which was then detected by the mother who confronted
Garza, filed for divorce, and obtained a protective order. And the criminal offenses,
Dr. Dunham said, constituted detection of yet another incident of recidivism after
detection. Garza’s pattern of offense, detection, and recidivism indicated to Dr.
Dunham that Garza is unable to control his impulses and so he is likely to engage in
future acts of sexual violence.
10 3. Discipline Issue while Incarcerated
Dr. Dunham also related an incident in which Garza, while incarcerated, wrote
a letter to try to establish an inappropriate relationship with a correctional staff
member. In that letter, Garza told the staff member that when he was released, he
wanted to marry her. Garza barely knew the staff member, but his letter indicated
that he knew she had young children. This behavior indicated to Dr. Dunham that
Garza was engaging in the pattern of grooming behavior he had used in previous
offenses, i.e., pursuing a woman with young children to marry after knowing her for a
very short time.
4. Conviction for a Related Non-Sexual Offense
Dr. Dunham also reviewed records related to Garza’s conviction for tampering
with or fabricating evidence. Although this offense is not a sexually violent offense
under the SVP Act, it was related to his four convictions for sexually violent offenses
and to his previous unindicted offenses.
According to the 2014 indictment, Garza fabricated an affidavit from his
second wife, in which she purportedly recanted testimony about his abuse of her
daughter and stated that she had lied under oath at trial. To this affidavit, Garza
affixed a false notary seal, and he attached the affidavit to a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus concerning his four convictions.
The indictment also accused Garza of fabricating an affidavit from a doctor
claiming that Garza could not have sex and had no capacity for sexual arousal, and so
11 would have no interest in committing sexual offenses. This fabricated letter was also
attached to the petition.
Garza denied he filed the affidavits at all, but admitted he was convicted of
tampering with or fabricating evidence and sentenced to another 20 years’
confinement, concurrent with the terms already commenced for the indecency
offenses.
Dr. Dunham testified that this kind of manipulative behavior, combined with
the grooming behaviors he observed, is also consistent with traits of antisocial
personality disorder, indicating a heightened risk of engaging in predatory acts of
sexual violence when coupled with sexual deviance such as paraphilia.
5. Dishonest behavior
Dr. Dunham also believed that Garza demonstrates pathological lying
behaviors. He based his belief not only on Garza’s conviction for tampering with or
fabricating evidence, but also on Garza’s inconsistent statements about his sex drive
and his personal history of abuse as well as his continual denial of having ever
engaged in conduct that would constitute a sexually violent offense. And, due to the
ease with which Garza told lies, Dr. Dunham characterized the behavior as
pathological lying.8
In Dr. Dunham’s opinion, pathological lying would constitute a barrier to any 8
treatment process.
12 For example, in his interview with Dr. Dunham, Garza stated that he had no
sex drive, never had an erection, and had never had sex. However, when he was
interviewed during the CPS investigation that eventually led to his convictions, Garza
told investigators, “I was having wild sex with my wife. I don’t know why this is
happening to me.”
Garza was also deposed by the Office of Special Prosecution Unit when the
state made its initial motion to civilly commit him as an SVP, and in that deposition,
Garza said that he was sexually abused by his uncle on one occasion but not by his
father. Yet in his interview with Dr. Dunham, he said he was continuously abused by
his father for a period of years and not abused by his uncle.
Another example of Garza’s dishonest behavior arose during his testimony in
the civil commitment hearing. Contrary to the testimony of the mother of the victims
of his two criminal indecency charges, Garza said twice that he did not grab her arm
to stop her from leaving the house when she fled with her children to end the
relationship. Yet when confronted with a transcript of his prior deposition testimony
admitting that he did grab her arm, he admitted to grabbing her arm.
Dr. Dunham observed that Garza denied and continues to deny that he ever
engaged in behavior that would constitute improper sexual contact with a child and
has never shown remorse or guilt. In Dr. Dunham’s analysis, Garza’s dishonest
behavior, lack of personal responsibility, and lack of remorse indicates a high risk to
reoffend and would present a barrier to potential future treatment.
13 6. Garza’s Hypersexuality
According to Dr. Dunham, Garza insists that he is and has always been
incapable of sexual arousal or sexual activity because he was born without testicles
and has required testosterone shots for most of his adult life because his body does
not create that hormone. But the records that Dr. Dunham reviewed belied that
claim. To the contrary, those testosterone shots actually heightened Garza’s sexual
arousal. Dr. Dunham believed that those records show that Garza is hypersexual,
which is consistent with his ex-wives’ testimony that Garza would, for example, have
sex with them and then masturbate afterwards. And both ex-wives testified that
Garza was able to have an erection and have penetrative sex. Garza even told
investigators during one interview that he and the mother of the victims had had
“wild sex,” which in Garza’s estimation indicated that he would not have had reason
to sexually offend against the two child victims.
Dr. Dunham opined that this showed Garza’s inability to control urges, as
Garza had had a sexual relationship with his wife, a consenting partner, but still had
committed sexual offenses against the child victims. Dr. Dunham noted that Garza’s
hypersexual behavior, having sex with his partner and offending against children,
appears to have begun during his previous marriage and repeated itself, indicating a
pattern of behavior and an inability to control sexual urges toward prepubescent and
pubescent girls.
14 7. Psychological Tests and Actuarial Risk to Reoffend
As part of his evaluation of Garza, Dr. Dunham administered the Hare
Psychopathy Checklist Revised test (PCL-R) and the Static-99R test for factors
indicating a likelihood to reoffend.
a. PCL-R Test Results
According to Dr. Dunham, the PCL-R measures the degree to which someone
has psychopathic characteristics. The test is divided into two factors: (1) internal,
personal characteristics; and (2) external, behavioral characteristics. Garza’s overall
score placed him within a moderate range of psychopathic characteristics, so Dr.
Dunham does not consider Garza to be a psychopath.
However, Garza’s PCL-R score in the antisocial external behavior factor was
high, including glibness and superficial charm; pathological lying and manipulative
behaviors; arrogance and narcissism; and a “victim stance”—that he was a victim and
had no victims because he had never offended against anyone. Dr. Dunham stated
that a score in a high range in one factor still shows a danger of reoffending, even if
the score in the other factor is low enough that the overall score falls in the normal to
moderate range, as is the case with Garza. While not sufficient for a diagnosis as a
psychopath, Dr. Dunham stated that these behaviors were characteristic of an
ongoing predisposition to commit sexually violent offenses, and the results
contributed to Dr. Dunham’s conclusion that Garza suffered from a behavioral
abnormality.
15 b. The Static-99R
As Dr. Dunham explained, the Static-99R is an actuarial risk assessment that
uses ten factors to estimate the likelihood that an offender will be convicted again
after release. The Static-99R generates an overall score between negative three and
twelve. Garza scored a negative one, a below average risk, on the test.
Garza’s below-average-risk score was based on six factors: (1) Garza has never
lived with a partner for more than two years; (2) Garza will be 63 years old at the time
of his projected release; (3) Garza’s sentence for his four sexual offenses was imposed
in a single sentencing event; (4) None of Garza’s victims were related to him; (5)
None of Garza’s victims were strangers to him; and (6) None of Garza’s victims were
male. All but one of these six factors indicated a lower risk of recidivism. Only the
first factor—having never lived with a partner for more than two years—indicated a
higher risk of recidivism for a first-time offender9 convicted of a sexually violent
offense.
Dr. Dunham explained that the test, while a useful tool, uses only common
factors for reoffending, so it is not a flawless predictor of a person’s risk of
reoffending; there are other factors not reflected in the test that should be considered.
Thus, Dr. Dunham considered the Static-99R just one part of an overall evaluation––
9 Because Garza’s convictions were in a single sentencing event, he is treated as a first-time offender under the Static-99R scoring rubric.
16 a “piece of the puzzle” in the standard clinically adjusted actuarial approach as
encouraged by the test’s authors.
For example, there are behaviors indicating a heightened risk of recidivism that
are not reflected in the Static 99-R test results, such as attraction to prepubescent girls
and remorselessness. According to Dr. Dunham, Garza demonstrates both of these
behaviors, which, in Dr. Dunham’s opinion, contributes to his increased likelihood to
reoffend. Dr. Dunham also pointed to Garza’s letter to a correctional staff member
as indicative of a desire to reoffend because it appeared to be “grooming” behavior.10
Despite Garza’s Static-99R test scores indicating that Garza would be at a low
risk of reoffending, Dr. Dunham considered Garza a recidivist, as he had already
reoffended after discovery. See supra Section II.A.2. Garza was accused of sexually
abusing his family members and was confronted; he was accused of sexually abusing
the daughter of his second wife, which resulted in divorce and a protective order; and
then he committed indecent contact offenses against the children of his third wife and
was convicted. According to Dr. Dunham, persons who reoffend after discovery of
sexual offenses are more likely to be rearrested and reconvicted in the future. In sum,
Dr. Dunham opined that the Static-99R result, without consideration of Garza’s
overall history and behavior pattern, underestimated Garza’s risk to reoffend.
B. Garza’s Testimony
10 According to Dr. Dunham, an explicit desire to reoffend immediately upon release is not a factor reflected in the Static-99R result.
17 Garza testified that he was born in 1960, that he had a hard upbringing, and
that he “had a rough dad, a sick man.” Garza claimed that his father had sexually
abused him from the ages of 8 until 15 and that his father also abused everyone in his
family except Garza’s youngest brother and oldest sister. He said in the deposition
that he blamed his uncle for the abuse because he was embarrassed of what his father
did.
Garza dropped out of school in tenth grade and worked at Goodyear until he
left home. Garza worked at Goodyear locations until he started his own auto shop.
He ran his business until 2002, when he had double knee replacement surgery and
took a job teaching automotive repair at Fort Worth ISD. In his deposition, Garza
stated that his intention upon release was to work as a school counselor, although at
trial he said that he would not pursue the job if that would protect him from “going
through all of this again.”
Garza denied all allegations against him. He denied being aware of allegations
that he had sexually abused one of his family members (the second of the two
unindicted offenses) until Dr. Dunham asked him about it during his interview.
Referring to his alleged sexual abuse of the victim of the first of the unindicted
offenses, he stated that he “was found not guilty of that through CPS.”
III. DISCUSSION
18 Garza argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s
finding that he suffered from a behavioral abnormality.11 We disagree.
Dr. Dunham based his opinions on Garza’s criminal case records, police
reports, victim statements, witness statements, educational records, treatment records,
medical records, prison records, parole case summary records, deposition transcripts,
test results, and his two interviews of Garza. After considering this information, Dr.
Dunham diagnosed Garza with sexual deviance in the form of paraphilic disorder—a
chronic condition affecting Garza’s emotional or volitional capacity—and found that
Garza showed behaviors consistent with, but insufficient to diagnose him with,
antisocial personality disorder.
Dr. Dunham weighed factors for and against the likelihood that Garza would
reoffend. Protective or mitigating factors against Garza’s reoffending included
Garza’s age (63), Garza’s general good behavior while incarcerated, and Garza’s lack
of victims who were strangers, male, or not related to him. Factors suggesting Garza
would reoffend included his subsequent offense after detection, offending while in a
It is undisputed that Garza was convicted of four counts of indecency with a 11
child by contact, and that sentences were imposed for all four counts. Garza denies that he committed the crimes for which he was convicted, but he offered no evidence that he was not convicted or that he was not sentenced. A repeat sexually violent offender is a person who is convicted of more than one sexually violent offense and a sentence is imposed, irrespective of whether the person admits to the offense. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.003(b); see In re Commitment of Barrientos, No. 01-17- 00649-CV, 2018 WL 3384563, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2018, pet. denied) (mem op.).
19 relationship with a consenting partner, patterns of behavior spread out over time, and
Garza’s behaviors consistent with antisocial personality disorder.
Garza argues that protective factors outnumber his negative risk factors. In
addition to those Dr. Dunham considered, Garza lists other protective factors that he
argues mitigate his risk to reoffend: his lack of noncontact sexual offenses such as
indecent exposure; his having had fewer than four prior sentencing events; his lack of
violent convictions other than sexually violent convictions; and his score on the
Static-99R and moderate psychopathy score on the PCL-R. He argues that his denial
and minimization of his offenses militates neither for nor against his recidivation
because pathological denial and actual innocence would manifest as effectively the
same behavior. This argument asks us to weigh the evidence in his favor against the
evidence in favor of the verdict and make a determination as to its credibility and
substitute our judgment for the jury’s.
However, the jury is the “sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the
weight to be given to their testimony.” Stoddard, 619 S.W.3d at 674 (quoting Golden
Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. 2003)). Viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict, which we are required to do, we conclude that
a reasonable jury could have put more weight on Dr. Dunham’s conclusions based on
his consideration of these and other factors and found that Garza suffers from a
behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual
20 violence. See In re Commitment of Ivie, 687 S.W.3d 526, 539–40 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2024, no pet.).
IV. CONCLUSION
Because legally sufficient evidence exists to support the jury’s findings as to
Garza’s behavioral abnormality, we overrule Garza’s sole issue and affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice
Delivered: January 16, 2025