order its reasons waiver in Texas

2021CODE ANN. § 54.02(h) (“If the juvenile court waives jurisdiction, it shall specifically state in the order its reasons for waiver . . . .); Moon, 451 S.W.3d at 49 (“. . .

2020CODE § 54.02(h) (juvenile court “shall state specifically in the order its reasons for waiver”); Moon, 451 S.W.3d at 49–50 –7– (appellate court must limit its sufficiency review to facts that juvenile court expressly relied upon as required to be explicitly set out in transfer order under § 54.02(h)).

2015“If the juvenile court waives jurisdiction, it is required to ‘state specifically in the order its reasons for waiver and certify its action, including the written order and findings of the court.’ ” Guerrero v. State, 471 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (mem.op.) (quoting Tex. Fam, Code Ann. § 54.02(h)); accord Moon, 451 S.W.3d at 38 .

2015"If the juvenile court waives jurisdiction, it is required to 'state specifically in the order its reasons for waiver and certify its action, including the written order and findings of the court.'" Guerrero v. State, No. 14-13-00101-CR, 2014 WL 7345987, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 23,2014, nopet.) (mem. op.) (quoting TEX.

2016In re N.J.A., 997 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Tex.1999); In re B.R.H., 426 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding).

2016In re N.J.A., 997 S.W.2d 554, 556 (Tex.1999); In re B.R.H., 426 S.W.3d 163, 166 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding).

2014E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695 , 698 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied); Matter of K.B.H., 913 S.W.2d 684, 687-88 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); In re J.J., 916 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no writ); State v. Lopez, 196 S.W.3d 872, 874 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd); Faisst, 105 S.W.3d at 12 .

2014REV . 509, 564-65 (1974) (“The committee’s draft [of Section 54.02(h)] stated that if the juvenile court waives jurisdiction ‘it shall briefly state in the order its reasons for waiver.’ The fact that the Legislature changed ‘briefly state’ to ‘state specifically’ indicates that it contemplated more than merely an adherence to printed forms and, indeed, contemplated a true relevation [sic] of reasons for making this discretionary decision.”). 57 E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, writ den

2014Cf. T.P.S. v. State, 590 S.W.2d 946, 953-54 (Tex. Civ.

2014E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695 , 698 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied); Matter of K.B.H., 913 S.W.2d 684, 687-88 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); In re J.J., 916 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no writ); State v. Lopez, 196 S.W.3d 872, 874 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd); Faisst, 105 S.W.3d at 12 .

2014REV . 509, 564-65 (1974) (“The committee’s draft [of Section 54.02(h)] stated that if the juvenile court waives jurisdiction ‘it shall briefly state in the order its reasons for waiver.’ The fact that the Legislature changed ‘briefly state’ to ‘state specifically’ indicates that it contemplated more than merely an adherence to printed forms and, indeed, contemplated a true relevation [sic] of reasons for making this discretionary decision.”). 57 E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, writ den

2014E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695 , 698 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied); Matter of K.B.H., 913 S.W.2d 684, 687-88 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); In re J.J., 916 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no writ); State v. Lopez, 196 S.W.3d 872, 874 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd); Faisst, 105 S.W.3d at 12 .

2014REV . 509, 564-65 (1974) (“The committee’s draft [of Section 54.02(h)] stated that if the juvenile court waives jurisdiction ‘it shall briefly state in the order its reasons for waiver.’ The fact that the Legislature changed ‘briefly state’ to ‘state specifically’ indicates that it contemplated more than merely an adherence to printed forms and, indeed, contemplated a true relevation [sic] of reasons for making this discretionary decision.”). 57 E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, writ den

2014E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695 , 698 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1995, writ denied); Matter of K.B.H., 913 S.W.2d 684, 687-88 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, no pet.); In re J.J., 916 S.W.2d 532, 535 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no writ); State v. Lopez, 196 S.W.3d 872, 874 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. ref'd); Faisst, 105 S.W.3d at 12 .

2014REV . 509, 564-65 (1974) (“The committee’s draft [of Section 54.02(h)] stated that if the juvenile court waives jurisdiction ‘it shall briefly state in the order its reasons for waiver.’ The fact that the Legislature changed ‘briefly state’ to ‘state specifically’ indicates that it contemplated more than merely an adherence to printed forms and, indeed, contemplated a true relevation [sic] of reasons for making this discretionary decision.”). 57 E.g., Matter of Honsaker, 539 S.W.2d at 201 ; C.M., 884 S.W.2d at 563 ; Matter of J.P.O., 904 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, writ den

2014MOON — 7 knowingly, and voluntarily waive[] all constitutional rights heretofore waived,” the juvenile court “misunderstood and misapplied the ‘sophistication and maturity’ element” of Section 54.02(f)—and that, even if it did not, there was still “no evidence to support the [juvenile] court’s sophistication and maturity finding” as expressed.6 Indeed, given that this Court opined in Hidalgo that the purpose of the Section 54.02(d) “psychological examination” is to “provide[] insight on the juvenile’s sophistication, maturity, potential for rehabilitation, decision-making ability, metacognitiv

2012FAMILY CODE ANN. § 54.02(h); see In re T.D., 817 12 S.W.2d 771 , 776–77 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (holding that order stating that trial court considered factors listed in prior version of subsection (f) of section 54.02 was sufficiently specific).4 We therefore overrule Almanzar’s fourth issue.

1978See authorities cited in Menefee, supra. The examining trial here discussed is mandated by the Family Code in Sec. 54.02(h): “If the juvenile court waives jurisdiction, it shall state specifically in the order its reasons for waiver and certify its action, including the written order and findings of the court, and transfer the child to the appropriate court for criminal proceedings.