## Facts

- At age 14, D.S. was adjudicated delinquent for murder and given a 30-year determinate sentence committing him to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC).
- As D.S. approached age 18, the juvenile court held a Texas Family Code § 54.11 hearing to decide whether to release him on parole or transfer him to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to serve the remainder of the determinate sentence.
- The juvenile court considered the seriousness of the offense, D.S.’s institutional behavior and disciplinary history at TYC, psychological and treatment evaluations, and TYC’s recommendation.
- The juvenile court ordered D.S. transferred to TDCJ to complete the remainder of the 30-year determinate sentence.
- D.S. appealed, challenging the hearing’s constitutional and procedural adequacy and arguing the evidence did not support transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether a § 54.11 release/transfer hearing is a criminal prosecution requiring full criminal-trial constitutional protections.
2. Whether admitting documentary summaries and hearsay at a § 54.11 hearing violates confrontation rights or due process.
3. Whether transferring a determinate-sentenced juvenile to TDCJ violates double jeopardy, ex post facto principles, cruel and unusual punishment, or due process.
4. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the transfer decision under the applicable standard of review.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the order transferring D.S. from TYC to TDCJ to complete the determinate sentence.
- The court held the § 54.11 proceeding is not a new criminal prosecution but a post-commitment, dispositional proceeding concerning where and under what conditions the existing sentence will be served.
- The court held that use of written reports and hearsay did not render the hearing unconstitutional where the process was fundamentally fair and D.S. had a meaningful opportunity to contest the evidence.
- The court rejected constitutional challenges to the determinate-sentencing and transfer scheme, reasoning that transfer executes the original sentence rather than imposing an additional punishment.
- Applying an abuse-of-discretion review, the court found the record supported transfer based on the offense’s seriousness, public safety concerns, and evidence regarding D.S.’s progress and behavior in TYC.

## Legal Principles

- A Texas Family Code § 54.11 release/transfer hearing is dispositional and post-adjudication; it determines whether the juvenile will be released or will complete the determinate sentence in TDCJ.
- Because the hearing is not a guilt-or-innocence trial, criminal-trial evidentiary strictness and confrontation protections do not apply in the same manner as at adjudication.
- Consideration of written institutional reports, evaluations, and other hearsay is permissible in a § 54.11 hearing if the proceedings satisfy due process and fundamental fairness.
- Transfer to TDCJ under the determinate-sentencing scheme enforces the single sentence imposed at adjudication; it is not a second punishment for double jeopardy purposes and does not violate ex post facto or due process principles on that basis.
- Appellate review of a § 54.11 transfer decision is for abuse of discretion, including whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings under the statutory factors.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the transfer of a determinate-sentenced juvenile to TDCJ, treating the § 54.11 hearing as a discretionary, post-commitment proceeding in which the juvenile court may rely on institutional records and reports consistent with due process, and finding sufficient evidence to support transfer based on the offense and the juvenile’s institutional record.


In re D.S., 921 S.W.2d 383 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied)