Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Denton County, Texas
Trial Court No. JV-2013-00432
Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
D.K. was placed on probation in 2013 for aggravated sexual
assault of a child, and the juvenile court deferred any
decision on whether to require him to register as a sex
offender. In 2019, after appellant committed a series of
nonsexual criminal acts, the trial court reconsidered and
required him to register after all.
argues that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because it
rendered the registration order three years after he
successfully completed probation and sex offender treatment.
In the alternative, he argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by relying solely on nonsexual criminal acts as
the basis for registration.
that neither the completion of treatment nor the lapse of
time destroyed jurisdiction. We further hold that
appellant's subsequent criminal offenses-marked as they
were with violence and predatory behavior-and other risk
factors justified the trial court's decision. We
September 24, 2013, appellant was found to be a child who
engaged in delinquent conduct, namely, aggravated sexual
assault of a child under the law of parties. The juvenile
court placed appellant on probation for two years and ordered
him to undergo sex offender treatment. At appellant's
request, the juvenile court deferred its decision on whether
to require appellant to register as a sex offender.
was unsuccessfully discharged from outpatient treatment, and
after he committed a new offense-assault against his
sister-the State moved to modify his probation. By agreement
of the parties, appellant's community supervision was
extended for an additional two years, and he was placed at
Pegasus Schools for inpatient sex offender treatment. He
successfully completed that program in April 2016, and his
probation ended in August 2016. The juvenile court did not
reconsider its previous deferral concerning sex offender
2018, appellant once again found himself before the juvenile
court when he was charged with two new offenses: terroristic
threat and assault against his brother-in-law. He was again
placed on probation, which was to last until his eighteenth
birthday. While on probation, appellant was alleged to have
committed two more offenses: continuous family violence, for
which he was jailed, and harassment of a public servant while
January 10, 2019, the State filed a motion to require
appellant to register as a sex offender. After hearing the
evidence, the juvenile court granted the motion, required
appellant to register, and entered detailed findings and
conclusions. He appeals.
first issue, appellant argues that the juvenile court lacked
jurisdiction to revisit its deferred decision. He argues that
the statute grants the juvenile court jurisdiction to
reconsider a deferred registration only during treatment or
"on the successful or unsuccessful completion of
treatment"; appellant interprets this language to mean
that jurisdiction terminates after completion of treatment.
According to appellant, the juvenile court therefore lacked
jurisdiction because appellant successfully completed
treatment years beforehand.
argument presents a question of statutory interpretation that
we review de novo. Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc., 579
S.W.3d 53, 59 (Tex. 2019). In construing statutes, our
primary objective is to give effect to the legislature's
intent. Id. We interpret statutes according to the