TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00382-CV
In the Matter of T. J. E. G.
FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 24-0007-J277, THE HONORABLE STACEY MATHEWS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
T.J.E.G., now seventeen years old, filed this accelerated appeal from the juvenile
court’s order waiving jurisdiction and transferring his case to criminal court for criminal
proceedings as an adult (the transfer order). See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 54.02(a), 56.01(h), (h-1).
On appeal, T.J.E.G. contends that the juvenile court’s waiver of exclusive jurisdiction and
transfer of his case to adult criminal court was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The State filed a petition with the juvenile court alleging that T.J.E.G. committed
manslaughter by recklessly causing the death of A.B. by shooting him with a deadly weapon.
The State’s petition requested that the court waive its jurisdiction and transfer T.J.E.G. to an
adult criminal court. The juvenile court held a transfer hearing. The State presented
documentary and testimonial evidence in support of its petition for transfer through T.J.E.G.’s
probation officer, Thea Barragan. Based on a report prepared by Barragan, the State alleged that in the early hours
of New Year’s Day 2024, T.J.E.G. was hanging out with his friend A.B. and some girls that A.B.
had invited in an Airbnb rented by T.J.E.G.’s father. While his father was in another room,
T.J.E.G. began playing with and waiving around a gun that he pulled out of his waistband.
According to a witness who was elsewhere but on a video call with someone in the room, the
situation escalated when the witness called T.J.E.G. a “ho” over the phone and he began
threatening the girls in the room with his gun and telling them to leave. A.B. told T.J.E.G. to
calm down and wait for the girls to get a rideshare service. According to the girls, T.J.E.G.
cocked the gun, A.B. attempted to take the gun from T.J.E.G., and the gun went off. The witness
that was on the video call said she heard screaming and a gunshot, that the phone fell to the
ground, and she saw A.B.’s head and blood on the screen and heard someone yell, “he shot him.”
T.J.E.G. told his father that A.B. had shot himself and then T.J.E.G. left the residence with the
gun. Someone other than T.J.E.G. called 911.
T.J.E.G. was detained nearby by a sheriff’s deputy who had been given the
description of the shooter given to the 911 operator. The responding deputy noticed that T.J.E.G.
had a blood droplet on his sock and bloodstains on his hands. T.J.E.G. admitted that he had a
gun in his backpack and, in response to a question about whether he had shot someone, he told
the deputy that the other person had shot himself. T.J.E.G.’s father told detectives that T.J.E.G.
regularly had firearms that T.J.E.G. had obtained himself. A few months prior to the alleged
offense, T.J.E.G.’s father had found two guns in T.J.E.G.’s possession and surrendered one to the
police and put the other in a safe. But he believed that T.J.E.G. had recovered the latter gun after
the safe had been left unsecured.
2 A.B. died at the scene. The preliminary autopsy revealed that A.B. had been shot
at close range above his right eye and bullet fragments removed from A.B.’s body matched the
bullets that were in the magazine of the gun that was in T.J.E.G.’s backpack when he
was detained.
Video and audio recordings were admitted into evidence that included: a cell
phone video of a person playing with a gun, the video recording of a police interview of T.J.E.G.
in which he admitted to detectives that he was the person playing with the gun in the cell phone
video, the audio of the 911 call, and surveillance video provided by the owner of the Airbnb that
shows T.J.E.G leaving the residence in a white t-shirt with a large bloodstain on the bottom half
of the back of it and him putting on a black hoodie over the t-shirt.
T.J.E.G.’s probation officer testified to his probation history. She testified that he
had been referred to the juvenile system in 2021 for a possession of marijuana charge and in
2023 for charges of aggravated robbery, engaging in organized criminal activity, unlawful
carrying of a weapon, evading arrest or detention, and two counts of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon all arising out of the same incident. T.J.E.G.’s probation report showed that he
was placed on a five-year determinate sentence, probated for eight years, for the aggravated
robbery, which involved T.J.E.G. and two others carjacking a rideshare driver at gunpoint.
Two of the terms of his probation required him to not violate any laws and
prohibited him from having a firearm or illegal weapon in his possession or control. T.J.E.G.
had participated in a county juvenile services program while on probation that included a gang
intervention program, social and recreational activities, and a program called Peaceful
Alternatives to Tough situations, which covered conflict resolution, anger management, and
character development. T.J.E.G. had been attending online school.
3 Also admitted in evidence was a psychological examination of T.J.E.G. conducted
by Doctor Stephen Thorne. Dr. Thorne determined that T.J.E.G.’s full scale IQ was 77, that he
had a moderate to high score on the Structured Assessment of Violence in Youth, that he “has
some sophistication and maturity” and can follow rules, but that he has an overly concrete,
simplistic, and limited self-awareness in interpersonal relationships. Dr. Thorne noted that
although T.J.E.G. reported never being physically or sexually abused, T.J.E.G.’s records
included a history of involvement by Child Protective Services with his family as a result of
allegations of neglectful supervision and physical abuse of T.J.E.G. and a sibling. Dr. Thorne
stated that he had been told by T.J.E.G.’s current therapist that T.J.E.G. was motivated to change,
active in treatment, receptive to relevant feedback and suggestions, and a role model for some of
the other kids. Dr. Thorne opined that T.J.E.G. has the ability to successfully comply with and
complete treatment services available to him in the juvenile justice system.
Dr. Thorne’s report recommended keeping T.J.E.G.’s manslaughter charge in the
juvenile system. His recommendation was based “in large part” on T.J.E.G.’s lack of social and
psychological sophistication and maturity, his family history, his behavior during his detainment
for the manslaughter charge, and Dr. Thorne’s opinion that T.J.E.G. could be rehabilitated via
services available in the juvenile justice system. T.J.E.G.’s probation officer testified at the
hearing that she also recommended that T.J.E.G. remain in the juvenile system.
After hearing all the evidence, the juvenile court waived jurisdiction and ordered
T.J.E.G. to be transferred to the adult criminal justice system. T.J.E.G. appealed.
LEGAL STANDARD
A juvenile court may waive its exclusive jurisdiction over a child and transfer the
child to district court for criminal proceedings if, (1) the child is alleged to have committed a
4 felony, (2) the child was at least 14 years old or 15 years old—depending on the degree of the
alleged felony—at the time of the alleged offense, and (3) after a full investigation and a hearing,
the juvenile court determines that probable cause exists to believe that the child committed the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-24-00382-CV
In the Matter of T. J. E. G.
FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 24-0007-J277, THE HONORABLE STACEY MATHEWS, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
T.J.E.G., now seventeen years old, filed this accelerated appeal from the juvenile
court’s order waiving jurisdiction and transferring his case to criminal court for criminal
proceedings as an adult (the transfer order). See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 54.02(a), 56.01(h), (h-1).
On appeal, T.J.E.G. contends that the juvenile court’s waiver of exclusive jurisdiction and
transfer of his case to adult criminal court was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The State filed a petition with the juvenile court alleging that T.J.E.G. committed
manslaughter by recklessly causing the death of A.B. by shooting him with a deadly weapon.
The State’s petition requested that the court waive its jurisdiction and transfer T.J.E.G. to an
adult criminal court. The juvenile court held a transfer hearing. The State presented
documentary and testimonial evidence in support of its petition for transfer through T.J.E.G.’s
probation officer, Thea Barragan. Based on a report prepared by Barragan, the State alleged that in the early hours
of New Year’s Day 2024, T.J.E.G. was hanging out with his friend A.B. and some girls that A.B.
had invited in an Airbnb rented by T.J.E.G.’s father. While his father was in another room,
T.J.E.G. began playing with and waiving around a gun that he pulled out of his waistband.
According to a witness who was elsewhere but on a video call with someone in the room, the
situation escalated when the witness called T.J.E.G. a “ho” over the phone and he began
threatening the girls in the room with his gun and telling them to leave. A.B. told T.J.E.G. to
calm down and wait for the girls to get a rideshare service. According to the girls, T.J.E.G.
cocked the gun, A.B. attempted to take the gun from T.J.E.G., and the gun went off. The witness
that was on the video call said she heard screaming and a gunshot, that the phone fell to the
ground, and she saw A.B.’s head and blood on the screen and heard someone yell, “he shot him.”
T.J.E.G. told his father that A.B. had shot himself and then T.J.E.G. left the residence with the
gun. Someone other than T.J.E.G. called 911.
T.J.E.G. was detained nearby by a sheriff’s deputy who had been given the
description of the shooter given to the 911 operator. The responding deputy noticed that T.J.E.G.
had a blood droplet on his sock and bloodstains on his hands. T.J.E.G. admitted that he had a
gun in his backpack and, in response to a question about whether he had shot someone, he told
the deputy that the other person had shot himself. T.J.E.G.’s father told detectives that T.J.E.G.
regularly had firearms that T.J.E.G. had obtained himself. A few months prior to the alleged
offense, T.J.E.G.’s father had found two guns in T.J.E.G.’s possession and surrendered one to the
police and put the other in a safe. But he believed that T.J.E.G. had recovered the latter gun after
the safe had been left unsecured.
2 A.B. died at the scene. The preliminary autopsy revealed that A.B. had been shot
at close range above his right eye and bullet fragments removed from A.B.’s body matched the
bullets that were in the magazine of the gun that was in T.J.E.G.’s backpack when he
was detained.
Video and audio recordings were admitted into evidence that included: a cell
phone video of a person playing with a gun, the video recording of a police interview of T.J.E.G.
in which he admitted to detectives that he was the person playing with the gun in the cell phone
video, the audio of the 911 call, and surveillance video provided by the owner of the Airbnb that
shows T.J.E.G leaving the residence in a white t-shirt with a large bloodstain on the bottom half
of the back of it and him putting on a black hoodie over the t-shirt.
T.J.E.G.’s probation officer testified to his probation history. She testified that he
had been referred to the juvenile system in 2021 for a possession of marijuana charge and in
2023 for charges of aggravated robbery, engaging in organized criminal activity, unlawful
carrying of a weapon, evading arrest or detention, and two counts of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon all arising out of the same incident. T.J.E.G.’s probation report showed that he
was placed on a five-year determinate sentence, probated for eight years, for the aggravated
robbery, which involved T.J.E.G. and two others carjacking a rideshare driver at gunpoint.
Two of the terms of his probation required him to not violate any laws and
prohibited him from having a firearm or illegal weapon in his possession or control. T.J.E.G.
had participated in a county juvenile services program while on probation that included a gang
intervention program, social and recreational activities, and a program called Peaceful
Alternatives to Tough situations, which covered conflict resolution, anger management, and
character development. T.J.E.G. had been attending online school.
3 Also admitted in evidence was a psychological examination of T.J.E.G. conducted
by Doctor Stephen Thorne. Dr. Thorne determined that T.J.E.G.’s full scale IQ was 77, that he
had a moderate to high score on the Structured Assessment of Violence in Youth, that he “has
some sophistication and maturity” and can follow rules, but that he has an overly concrete,
simplistic, and limited self-awareness in interpersonal relationships. Dr. Thorne noted that
although T.J.E.G. reported never being physically or sexually abused, T.J.E.G.’s records
included a history of involvement by Child Protective Services with his family as a result of
allegations of neglectful supervision and physical abuse of T.J.E.G. and a sibling. Dr. Thorne
stated that he had been told by T.J.E.G.’s current therapist that T.J.E.G. was motivated to change,
active in treatment, receptive to relevant feedback and suggestions, and a role model for some of
the other kids. Dr. Thorne opined that T.J.E.G. has the ability to successfully comply with and
complete treatment services available to him in the juvenile justice system.
Dr. Thorne’s report recommended keeping T.J.E.G.’s manslaughter charge in the
juvenile system. His recommendation was based “in large part” on T.J.E.G.’s lack of social and
psychological sophistication and maturity, his family history, his behavior during his detainment
for the manslaughter charge, and Dr. Thorne’s opinion that T.J.E.G. could be rehabilitated via
services available in the juvenile justice system. T.J.E.G.’s probation officer testified at the
hearing that she also recommended that T.J.E.G. remain in the juvenile system.
After hearing all the evidence, the juvenile court waived jurisdiction and ordered
T.J.E.G. to be transferred to the adult criminal justice system. T.J.E.G. appealed.
LEGAL STANDARD
A juvenile court may waive its exclusive jurisdiction over a child and transfer the
child to district court for criminal proceedings if, (1) the child is alleged to have committed a
4 felony, (2) the child was at least 14 years old or 15 years old—depending on the degree of the
alleged felony—at the time of the alleged offense, and (3) after a full investigation and a hearing,
the juvenile court determines that probable cause exists to believe that the child committed the
alleged offense “and that because of the seriousness of the offense alleged or the background of
the child the welfare of the community requires criminal proceedings.” Tex. Fam. Code
§ 54.02(a). In making these determinations, the court shall consider, among other matters:
(1) whether the alleged offense was against person or property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to offenses against the person;
(2) the sophistication and maturity of the child;
(3) the record and previous history of the child; and
(4) the prospects of adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use of procedures, services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile court.
Id. § 54.02(f). These factors are nonexclusive, and the juvenile court may base its transfer order
on the strength of any combination of the subsection (f) criteria. In re I.N.A., No. 03-22-00206-CV,
2022 WL 4830785, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 4, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). The court does
not have to make specific findings of fact regarding the listed factors. Id. “The State has the
burden to persuade the juvenile court by a preponderance of the evidence that the welfare of the
community requires transfer of jurisdiction for criminal proceedings, either because of the
seriousness of the offense alleged or the background of the child or both.” Bell v. State,
649 S.W.3d 867, 886 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, pet. ref’d). The transfer of a child
from juvenile court to adult criminal court is regarded as the exception, not the rule. See In re
J.W.W., 507 S.W.3d 408, 414 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.).
5 There are two parts to our review of the juvenile court’s decision to waive
jurisdiction. First, we review the specific findings of fact regarding the subsection 54.02(f)
factors “under traditional standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence.” In re D.J.M.,
No. 03-18-00476-CV, 2019 WL 190535, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 14, 2019, no pet.) (mem.
op.). “Second, we review the juvenile court’s ultimate waiver decision for an abuse of
discretion.” In re J.R., No. 05-20-00920-CV, 2021 WL 777090, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Mar. 1, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.). A juvenile court abuses its discretion when its decision to
transfer is arbitrary based on the evidence. Id.
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding, we
credit evidence favorable to the challenged finding and disregard contrary evidence unless a
reasonable factfinder could not. D.J.M., 2019 WL 190535, at *2. When reviewing the factual
sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding, we must consider and weigh all the evidence in
support of and contrary to the finding and will uphold the contested finding unless we find that
the evidence is too weak to support it or the finding is so against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence that it is manifestly unjust. In re C.C., 930 S.W.2d 929, 933 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996,
no writ).
DISCUSSION
In its transfer order, the juvenile court “determined that there is probable cause to
believe that the child before the court committed the offenses alleged and that because of the
seriousness of the offenses alleged or the background of the child the welfare of the community
requires criminal proceedings” and “that it is contrary to the best interest of the public to retain
jurisdiction.” Regarding the four factors, the juvenile court further explained on the record (1)
that it found that the offense was against a person rather than property, (2) that it weighed
6 T.J.E.G.’s maturity and sophistication as a 17-year-old with the support he would have from his
parents to determine his ability to navigate the adult criminal justice system; (3) that in weighing
its concerns for public safety with rehabilitation considerations, it was concerned about the
seriousness of T.J.E.G.’s determinate sentence for the aggravated robbery offense that he was on
probation for, the alleged manslaughter offense, and his “obsession with guns”; and (4) that the
juvenile system would not be able to adequately address T.J.E.G.’s needs based on the
seriousness of the alleged offense and his age. After explaining its decision, the juvenile court
summarized its findings: “based on the fact that [T.J.E.G. is] 17, the nature of this offense, and
the fact that [he is] on this determinate sentence for an aggravated robbery . . . I am going to
waive jurisdiction, transferring [him] into the adult system.”
Turning to the factors in subsection 52.04(f) in order, as the juvenile court
determined, the alleged offense of manslaughter is an offense against a person. See Tex. Fam.
Code § 52.04(f)(1); Tex. Penal Code § 19.04 (listing manslaughter within portion of Penal Code
entitled “Offenses Against the Person”). The allegations against T.J.E.G. are that he recklessly
caused the death of his friend after the gun that T.J.E.G. brought to the party, waived around, and
threatened people with, went off during a failed attempt to disarm him. The juvenile court’s
finding on this factor is sufficiently supported by evidence and weighs in favor of transfer. See
Tex. Fam. Code § 52.04(f)(1) (directing courts to give greater weight in favor of transfer to
offenses against persons); In re T.C., No. 06-21-00075-CV, 2022 WL 398419, at *4 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana Feb. 10, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (weighing first factor “heavily in favor of
transfer” when “offense against a person resulted in a shooting”).
Regarding the second factor, “[t]he purpose of an inquiry into the mental ability
and maturity of the juvenile is to determine whether he appreciates the nature and effect of his
7 voluntary actions and whether they were right or wrong.” In re E.D.N., 635 S.W.2d 798, 801
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1982, no writ). T.J.E.G. contends that the evidence failed
to show that he possessed the sophistication or maturity to support the transfer. In explaining its
decision at the hearing, the juvenile court stated that it believed that defense counsel had done an
“outstanding job” making the argument that T.J.E.G. was not sophisticated or mature enough to
manage the adult system, but that it was balancing his sophistication and maturity with the
seriousness of the offense. Notably, “not every factor need weigh in favor of transfer to the
criminal district court.” Bell, 649 S.W.3d at 886. Additionally, there was conflicting evidence
presented regarding T.J.E.G.’s sophistication and maturity. Although Dr. Thorne’s report stated
that T.J.E.G.’s test scores placed him in the bottom percentiles for his age, Dr. Thorne also
opined that T.J.E.G. would be able to adequately participate in proceedings in either the juvenile
justice system or the adult criminal justice system.
The juvenile court also heard evidence related to the third factor, T.J.E.G.’s
“record and previous history,” that supported the juvenile court’s decision. See Tex. Fam. Code
§ 54.02(f)(3). T.J.E.G. contends that although he had prior referrals for various offenses, his
history and record did not support transfer. T.J.E.G. emphasizes that only one of his referrals
resulted in an adjudication, that he had passed seven drug tests while on probation, that his only
history of drug use was with marijuana, that he was attending school, and that he was reporting
to his probation officer. However, there was also evidence presented that T.J.E.G. had a history
of obtaining guns and had done so twice while on probation in violation of one of the terms of
his probation. He also contends that the evidence showed that he was not the person wielding
the gun in the aggravated robbery for which he was on probation. There was conflicting
evidence presented regarding whether T.J.E.G. or one of the other two people involved held the
8 gun in the aggravated robbery of the rideshare driver. However, Dr. Thorne’s report included an
excerpt from T.J.E.G.’s probation records that stated that a gun matching the description of the
one used in the robbery was found near T.J.E.G. when he was detained, and he was in possession
of the rideshare driver’s AirPods. Further, T.J.E.G.’s judicial confession was admitted into
evidence, and in it he admitted using a firearm while committing aggravated robbery. The
evidence supported a finding under subsection 54.02(f)(3) in support of the transfer order.
The juvenile court also considered the fourth factor, “the prospects of adequate
protection of the public and the likelihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use of procedures,
services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile court,” see Tex. Fam. Code
§ 54.02(f)(4), and resolved this factor in favor of transfer. The court acknowledged the
testimony that recommended that T.J.E.G. remain in the juvenile system to receive rehabilitation
services but expressed that the fact that he was seventeen years old created doubts in the ability
of the system to rehabilitate him. See Bell, 649 S.W.3d at 896 (explaining that age of juvenile at
time of hearing is relevant when considering fourth factor because child could age out of system
at age nineteen and juvenile system is only designed to assist children); Thorn v. State,
No. 12-10-00287-CR, 2011 WL 5877021, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 23, 2011, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting that “[t]he juvenile court is not bound to
follow the recommendations of experts”). The juvenile court also explained that it considered
T.J.E.G.’s determinate sentence for the aggravated robbery offense to be very serious. See Tex.
Penal Code §§ 12.04(a) (classifying first-degree felonies as second most serious type of felony),
29.03(b) (classifying aggravated robbery as first-degree felony offense); cf. Bell, 649 S.W.3d at
889 (explaining that “[a]ggravated robbery is a serious offense against a person, which weighs
heavily in favor of transfer” in analyzing first factor). The juvenile court also expressed
9 concerns about what it characterized as T.J.E.G.’s obsession with guns. The evidence included a
video of T.J.E.G. playing with the gun by which A.B. was shot and killed prior to the offense
occurring and testimony that T.J.E.G. had a history of obtaining guns, including the two taken
from him by his father, one of which is believed to be the gun involved in the manslaughter
offense. The evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that the fourth factor
weighed in favor of transfer.
In sum, we overrule T.J.E.G.’s sufficiency challenges to the evidence supporting
the transfer under the subsection 54.02(f) factors. On this record and in light of the sufficiency
of the findings, we cannot conclude that the juvenile court’s decision was arbitrary or made
without reference to guiding rules. Rather, the record demonstrates that the juvenile court
analyzed all four factors and balanced the weight of them against each other after careful
consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we find no abuse of
discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to waive jurisdiction and transfer the case to a criminal
court. We overrule T.J.E.G.’s sole issue.
__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana, Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: January 30, 2025