Twelfth Court Affirms Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court: Explicit Factor-by-Factor Analysis in Order Not Required
In the Matter of P.D.W., a Juvenile, 12-25-00101-CV, February 11, 2026.
On appeal from the County Court at Law of Houston County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Twelfth Court of Appeals held that a juvenile court’s discretionary transfer order is not required to set forth explicit, case-specific findings for every factor listed in Texas Family Code Section 54.02(f) to avoid an abuse of discretion. As long as the order as a whole indicates the court considered the statutory criteria and provides the general reasons for the waiver of jurisdiction, the transfer to adult criminal court is valid.
Relevance to Family Law
While frequently categorized as “quasi-criminal,” juvenile delinquency proceedings are governed by the Texas Family Code and are often presided over by practitioners and judges in the family law sphere. This decision reinforces the substantial latitude afforded to trial courts when exercising discretionary jurisdiction. For the family litigator, this case serves as a critical reminder that the “abuse of discretion” standard remains a high bar in Family Code proceedings; appellate courts will look to the substance of the trial court’s order and the record as a whole rather than requiring a mechanical, checkbox-style recitation of statutory factors. It suggests that a “holistic” approach to judicial findings is sufficient to satisfy due process and statutory mandates in waiver of jurisdiction scenarios.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The case arose from the tragic death of P.W., Sr., the father of the juvenile appellant, P.D.W. Following an investigation into the father’s disappearance, remains were discovered near the residence of P.D.W.’s girlfriend. Evidence linked a co-defendant, Deshayon Knight, to the victim’s property and vehicle. The investigation revealed a text message from P.D.W.’s account claiming he had “killed [his] dad” for his girlfriend. During a voluntary interview, P.D.W. eventually admitted to participating in a plan with Knight to kill his father, providing the knives used in the stabbing, and subsequently attempting to clean the crime scene and dispose of the body.
The State moved for discretionary transfer to adult court, alleging capital murder, murder, and several other first-degree felonies. Following a multi-day evidentiary hearing in early 2025, the juvenile court granted the motion, waived its exclusive original jurisdiction, and transferred P.D.W. to the criminal district court to be tried as an adult. P.D.W. appealed, specifically challenging the technical sufficiency of the transfer order.
Issues Decided
The primary issue before the Twelfth Court of Appeals was whether a juvenile court’s waiver of jurisdiction and subsequent transfer constitutes an abuse of discretion if the written order fails to explicitly state the court’s consideration of each individual factor listed in Texas Family Code Section 54.02(f).
Rules Applied
The court looked to Texas Family Code § 54.02, which governs the waiver of jurisdiction. Under § 54.02(a), the court must find probable cause and determine that the seriousness of the offense or the child’s background requires criminal proceedings for the welfare of the community.
Section 54.02(f) provides a non-exclusive list of factors for the court to consider, including the nature of the offense (person vs. property), the sophistication/maturity of the child, the child’s prior record, and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court also relied on Ex parte Thomas, 623 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021), which established that a transfer order need not contain “detailed, case-specific findings” to be valid, provided it complies with the broader statutory requirements.
Application
In its analysis, the Twelfth Court rejected P.D.W.’s argument that the trial court failed to consider whether the offense was against a person or property. The appellant argued the trial court substituted the “seriousness of the crime” for the specific statutory language of the first factor. However, the appellate court noted that the trial court’s order set forth the verbatim list of Section 54.02(f) factors in its preamble and again in the section describing the scope of the hearing.
The court told a legal story of substantive compliance over formalistic rigidity. It observed that the trial court’s order described the “gravity of the offense” in detail, specifically mentioning the violent end of P.W., Sr.’s life during a robbery and assault. By listing the specific offenses—including capital murder and aggravated assault—the trial court’s order made it “apparent” that it had considered the nature of the crime as being against a person. The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s narrative discussion of the facts and the gravity of the conduct sufficiently demonstrated that the court weighed the mandatory statutory criteria, even if the order did not use the exact phrasing the appellant desired.
Holding
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. A juvenile-transfer order entered after a proper hearing constitutes a valid waiver of jurisdiction even without factually-supported, case-specific findings for every single factor.
The court further held that any combination of the Section 54.02(f) criteria may suffice to support a waiver of jurisdiction, and the trial court is only bound to consider those factors, not to find that every factor weighs in favor of transfer. Because the order as a whole reflected that the trial court considered the statutory factors and set forth its reasons for waiver, the judgment was affirmed.
Practical Application
For practitioners, this case highlights the importance of the record over the form of the order. If representing the State or a party seeking a discretionary transfer (or a similar discretionary waiver under the Family Code), ensure the record contains evidence on all 54.02(f) factors, even if the final order is concise. For the defense, this opinion suggests that an appeal based solely on the absence of “magic words” in a transfer order is unlikely to succeed. To prevail on appeal, a litigant must show that the court failed to consider the factors at all, or that the evidence was legally or factually insufficient to support the underlying “community welfare” determination.
Checklists
Drafting a Robust Transfer Order
- Incorporate the full text of Section 54.02(f) into the recitals of the order to prove the court identified the correct legal standard.
- Include a narrative summary of the “reasons or considerations” for the transfer, focusing on the gravity of the offense and the child’s role.
- Explicitly list the felony grades and the specific nature of the alleged conduct (e.g., “offenses against the person”).
- Reference the “full investigation” and the “evidentiary hearing” to satisfy the procedural requirements of § 54.02(a)(3).
Challenging a Transfer on Appeal
- Review the reporter’s record to determine if any evidence was actually presented regarding the child’s “sophistication and maturity” or “prospects of rehabilitation.”
- If the order is vague, check if the record contradicts the court’s summary “reasons.”
- Focus the argument on a total failure to consider a factor, rather than a failure to state the consideration of a factor.
- Assess whether the “seriousness of the offense” finding is supported by the probable cause evidence presented at the hearing.
Citation
In the Matter of P.D.W., a Juvenile, No. 12-25-00101-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 11, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~24247623-a046-44df-b953-b9a473f60c3e~~
Share this content:
