an initiative


As you know, we have four young men in Texas who were convicted as adults of parricide while they were still juveniles. In Moon v. Texas, the appellate court vacated a criminal conviction on the basis that the juvenile court improperly waived its jurisdiction.

It seems that many juvenile courts in Texas have been using the same template for orders to waive jurisdiction, which has led appelate courts in Texas to hand down favorable rulings based on arguments similar to Moon v. Texas.

This development was brought to my attention by one of our kids, Austin Eversole, who has been looking into the possibility of mounting an appeal based on the new ruling, arguing that the waiver of jurisdiction from the juvenile court was legally deficient. If Austin’s order used the same template as referred to above, he may have a strong argument.

We have two other kids serving 40-year and 99-years sentences, respectively, and this approach may offer a basis to mount appeals on multiple fronts. (The fourth kid is eligible for parole in about a year.) If successful appeals were mounted, they could have their convictions in the adult courts vacated.

I have shared this possibility with our law firm, Kutmus, Pennington and Hook.

Yesterday I heard from them and they were excited by the prospect. Obviously, each case needs to be researched to determine whether an appeal is warranted. But we are determined to move forward.

Here is a write-up of the new climate for Texas appeals by a source that is far more knowledgeable than me at evaluating its potential: the Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia PA.


The State of Texas v. Cameron Moon

by The Juvenile Law Center

In a landmark case, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals ruled that the juvenile court erred in failing to conduct an individualized assessment of a 16 year-old’s circumstances before ordering that the youth be tried as an adult. In State v. Cameron Moon, the Texas high court affirmed a ruling vacating Cameron’s transfer to adult court, finding the record factually insufficient to justify the decision. The opinion criticized the juvenile court’s order for simply reciting the transfer statute, and held that juvenile courts must do the “the heavy lifting” of demonstrating their reasons for transfer if they expect their decisions to be upheld on appeal.

Cameron Moon was indicted for murder when he was 16 years-old. Prior to this incident, he had only one misdemeanor conviction for keying a car. The state asked the juvenile court to order that Cameron stand trial as an adult. At Cameron’s hearing, the state presented no evidence about the factors the judge was legally required to consider before ordering transfer other than the fact that he was charged with a serious offense. By contrast, Cameron’s team provided uncontradicted testimony that the youth lacked sophistication and maturity and he was highly amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system. Nevertheless, the motion was granted. Moon was later found guilty and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

In a well-reasoned opinion, an intermediate appellate court found that the juvenile court’s findings—that Cameron was of sufficient sophistication and maturity and there was little prospect of public protection and rehabilitation in the juvenile system—were unsupported by the evidence. The intermediate court also rejected the state’s argument that the nature of the offense standing alone justified transfer, stating that such an interpretation would render the Texas statute meaningless.

In ruling against the state on appeal, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals noted that under the state statute, evidence of a sufficiently egregious offense is enough to justify a waiver of jurisdiction under Texas law. By contrast, in Cameron’s case the juvenile court merely pointed to the category of the alleged crime and heard no evidence about the circumstances surrounding it. The court thus concluded that the transfer decision was “too ill formed to constitute anything but an arbitrary decision.”

Citing to the United States Supreme Court decision in Kent v. United States, the Texas court reinforced the “primacy of appellate review in order to assure that the juvenile court’s broad discretion is not abused” in making the transfer decision. The court rejected the state’s argument that a reviewing court should look at the whole record, including statements made from the bench, to determine if there was any valid reason to support the juvenile court’s waiver decision. Instead, the high court held that the juvenile court has to “show its work” and “put its deliberative process on the record” in its transfer orders, as appellate judges should not “speculate” as to the juvenile judge’s reasoning or “rummage through the record” to find facts to support it.

The Court of Criminal Appeals also agreed with the intermediate appellate court’s finding that the record was legally insufficient to support the finding with regard to sophistication and maturity, as the state presented no evidence on this factor. The high court rejected as unsound the juvenile court’s flawed reasoning that Cameron was sophisticated and mature because he previously waived his constitutional rights and could aid in his defense.

While the decision is a victory for youth throughout Texas, it is particularly so in Harris County, where juvenile courts have a practice of “rubberstamping” requests to transfer youth to adult courts. According to the Center for Children, Law & Policy at the University of Houston Law Center, statistics show that in recent years Harris County—the largest county in Texas by population—waived more youth into adult court than the second, third and fourth largest counties combined. Harris County juvenile courts rarely deny transfer motions and in some years granted transfer in 100% of cases.

Cameron is represented by attorneys Jack Carnegie, John Hagan, David Adler, and Christene Wood. Juvenile Law Center authored an amicus brief, arguing that the juvenile court’s practice of waiving jurisdiction without an individualized determination is unconstitutional. The United State Supreme Court has repeatedly held that youth are categorically less mature in their decision-making, less culpable, and more capable of change than adults. For these reasons, Juvenile Law Center believes that youth should rarely if ever be tried in adult court, where they are subject to confinement in punitive prisons without access to treatment and rehabilitation services.


Groove of the Day

Listen to Michael Jackson performing “One More Chance”


Weather Report

60° and Clear


4 Responses to “an initiative”

  1. 1 anonymouse
    February 25, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    I notice that some jurisdictions start these cases in juvenile court (due to offender age) and may be waived to adult court, while others start in adult court (due to offense) and may be waived to juvenile court under certain circumstances. I understand the theory of adult crime equals adult time, but that approach seems to abrogate the reason for having a separate juvenile justice system in the first place, that being that we are dealing with children whose bodies, brains, and reasoning have not yet matured to an adult level (whatever that is), regardless of crime. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if it foretells of a future trend.

  2. 2 BobH
    February 26, 2015 at 12:11 am

    The de facto or de sure automatic waiver makes no legal or humanitarian sense. If a legislature had intended that all crimes of a particular type should be tried in adult court, they could have made that provision in law. To give that decision to a prosecutor puts it in the hands of a party that is legally dedicated to securing a conviction. The practice of plea bargaining then puts all the power in the hands of the prosecutor, unless the accused is willing to risk all on the case. Since parricides tend to have actually carried out the actions of parricide, the only remaining decision is the sentence, which depends on the charge, which depends on the prosecutor and a possible plea bargain.

    The purposes of punishment, as I explain in 7th grade, can be deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution, societal protection, retribution and education/denunciation. Deterrence is impossible – how many kids will hear of the penalty or take it into account? They can’t even understand, some of them, that sexting is a potential felony. Restitution for parricide is impossible. Societal protection is not being achieved in a realistic way when the sentence is effectively life, because there is no evidence of repeat offenses by parricides. I conclude that society’s response to parricide is driven by retribution and denunciation. It is too horrible for average America to contemplate chilldren killing parents, regardless of the circumstances, that the public will is in favor of extreme penalty.

    • 3 matt
      February 26, 2015 at 7:45 am

      Dan once posted of a common ancient Roman penalty for parricide/patricide, which tends to support your contention of modern sentences being driven by retribution and denunciation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: