X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:J.D.G., 16, was charged with aggravated sexual assault against a 12-year-old girl and put on deferred prosecution in October 2001. In August 2002, the juvenile court held an adjudication hearing, where he was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct. He was put on intensive supervision probation until his 18th birthday on May 5, 2003. No decision was made regarding J.D.G.’s registration as a sex offender. J.D.G. was soon found in violation of at least 10 conditions of his probation, including drug and curfew violations. On April 8, 2003, the state asked the court to required J.D.G. register as a sex offender. The juvenile court acceded, finding: 1. the interests of the public require registration; 2. protection of the public would be increased by registration; and 3. any potential increase in public protection resulting from registration would clearly outweigh any anticipated harm to appellant and his family resulting from registration. J.D.G. filed a notice of appeal on May 2, arguing the juvenile court abused its discretion by having him register as a sex offender before his 18th birthday. HOLDING:Affirmed. Under Family Code Chapter 62, after a hearing on the juvenile’s motion to determine whether the interests of the public require registration as a sex offender or under a plea agreement, the juvenile court may enter an order deferring its decision on requiring registration until the juvenile completes treatment for the sexual offense as a condition of probation or while committed to the Texas Youth Commission. The juvenile court retains discretion to require or excuse registration at any time during the treatment or on its successful or unsuccessful completion. In this case, there was evidence that while J.D.G. hadn’t done anything “characteristic” of a sex offender, there was also evidence that J.D.G. had an attraction to grade-school boys and girls, had sexually touched younger girls and had not complied with some of the requirements of his sex offender treatment. J.D.G. was said to still engage in deceptive and irresponsible behavior. It was also said that his thinking patterns may not be improved. The court thus says the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering J.D.G. to register as a sex offender prior to his 18th birthday. In deferring registration initially, the juvenile court nonetheless retains its discretion to require registration at any time during the juvenile’s successful or unsuccessful completion of his treatment or punishment. “Furthermore, examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the court’s order, we cannot conclude the juvenile court acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to any guiding rules or principles when it found, among other things, that the interests of the public required registration.” OPINION:Rodriguez, J.; Valdez, C.J., Rodriguez and Garza, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.