in Re Commitment of John Wayne Hicks ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                      In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    _________________
    NO. 09-17-00186-CV
    _________________
    IN RE COMMITMENT OF JOHN WAYNE HICKS
    ________________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 88th District Court
    Hardin County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 57373
    ________________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predators Act, a jury unanimously found
    beyond a reasonable doubt that John Wayne Hicks is a sexually violent predator. See
    Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.061–.062 (West 2017). The trial court
    adjudicated him as a sexually violent predator and civilly committed him for sex-
    offender treatment and supervision. Hicks presents two issues for our consideration
    on appeal. Hicks contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to
    support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt he has a behavioral abnormality that
    1
    makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. We overrule both
    issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    Standard of Review
    The commitment of a person as a sexually violent predator is a civil
    proceeding. In re Commitment of Fisher, 
    164 S.W.3d 637
    , 645–53 (Tex. 2005). The
    State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is a sexually violent
    predator, which is the same burden of proof the State has in criminal cases. See Tex.
    Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.062(a). Therefore, we employ the same legal
    sufficiency standard of review applied in criminal cases. See In re Commitment of
    Barbee, 
    192 S.W.3d 835
    , 839 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006, no pet.) (citing In re
    Commitment of Mullens, 
    92 S.W.3d 881
    , 885 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, pet.
    denied)). We examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to
    determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the elements required for civil
    commitment as a sexually violent predator beyond a reasonable doubt. See 
    Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 885
    (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 319 (1979)). It is the
    jury’s responsibility to resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and
    draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. 
    Id. at 887
    (citations
    omitted).
    2
    A factual sufficiency standard of review is no longer employed in criminal
    cases. See Brooks v. State, 
    323 S.W.3d 893
    , 894–95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
    However, we continue to utilize the factual sufficiency standard of review in
    sexually violent predator commitment proceedings as established by the Court of
    Criminal Appeals in criminal cases. See 
    Barbee, 192 S.W.3d at 839
    (citations
    omitted). Under that standard, “we view all of the evidence in a neutral light and ask
    whether a jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    In re Commitment of Day, 
    342 S.W.3d 193
    , 206 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2011, pet.
    denied) (quoting In re Commitment of Gollihar, 
    224 S.W.3d 843
    , 846 (Tex. App.—
    Beaumont 2007, no pet.)). “To reverse a case on a factual sufficiency challenge, we
    must be able to say that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence
    contradicts the jury’s verdict or that the verdict is clearly wrong or manifestly
    unjust.” 
    Id. (quoting Gollihar,
    224 S.W.3d at 846).
    Sufficiency of the Evidence
    The jury learned Hicks pled guilty on two separate occasions to charges of
    aggravated sexual assault of a child through testimony and other records admitted at
    trial. Specifically, Hicks successfully completed deferred adjudication for the first
    offense, but he violated the terms of his deferred adjudication for the second offense
    and was adjudicated guilty. His first offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child
    3
    was against his stepdaughter. The evidence showed the abuse began when the
    stepdaughter was eleven years old. Hicks admitted to some version of the assault in
    front of the jury, but he attempted to minimize his culpability. A statement he gave
    to police around the time of the assault was admitted into evidence which graphically
    depicted assaults occurring on multiple occasions during a short period of time. At
    trial, when asked to explain the discrepancies in his testimony and his written
    statement, he indicated he did not “remember none of it.” Hicks’s testimony
    regarding the offense against his stepdaughter was contradictory. Initially, Hicks
    testified that at the time of the incident, he believed his eleven-year-old stepdaughter
    was a willing participant. He then indicated that after going through the classes and
    programs, he did not believe she was a willing participant; however, he subsequently
    confirmed he still felt his stepdaughter was sexually curious, and he believed she
    wanted to have sex with him. Additionally, Hicks testified that his stepdaughter
    came on to him about five times or so, and there “was a lot of times that she tried
    and I wouldn’t do nothing.” Hicks also explained to the jury that his feelings of
    rejection and being let down led him to offend against his stepdaughter. As a term
    of his deferred adjudication for this offense, he attended a sexual offender treatment
    program for ten years.
    4
    The second offense, and the one for which he was adjudicated guilty, was
    committed against an eighteen-month-old child he was babysitting. Although Hicks
    admitted at trial that he pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault, he denied doing
    anything wrong to the baby or that she was his victim. This assault occurred a few
    years after he was released from supervision for the first offense. Hicks began a
    treatment program for sexual offenders while in prison and continued to receive
    treatment at the time of trial.
    Hicks also testified regarding his difficulty keeping a job. He indicated he had
    no support except for his mother. He also attempted to explain how he violated the
    terms of deferred adjudication by nonpayment of fees; however, his expert indicated
    that he violated other rules as well.
    The State called psychiatrist Dr. David Self to testify as an expert. Dr. Self
    described the methodology he uses when performing an evaluation and testified he
    used the same methodology in this case. He indicated he reviewed the records from
    multiple sources. Dr. Self testified that he did not score any tests, but he reviewed
    the results of actuarial tests provided. He explained how he arrived at his opinion in
    this case, which included empirical research and risk factors.
    Dr. Self met with Hicks in November of 2016 for about an hour and a half.
    Dr. Self indicated Hicks provided a minimized version of the offense against his
    5
    stepdaughter when they met, like the version Hicks provided to the jury. Dr. Self
    indicated that Hicks’s minimization was significant because his refusal to “own his
    behavior” made it almost impossible to prevent it from happening again.
    Dr. Self discussed how the age of the victims and their family status impacted
    his evaluation of risk factors. He also explained the wide age gap of his victims
    provides an opportunity for a large number of potential victims. Dr. Self testified
    that the younger the child is, the more deviant the act is, so he would consider that
    as a risk elevator. Dr. Self testified that the persistence of Hicks’s deviant interest
    after punishment coupled with the fact that Hicks engaged in a more deviant act
    following punishment was significant and showed he could not help himself.
    Dr. Self described the clinical factors he found significant in Hicks; he was
    sexually deviant, and he has nonexclusive pedophilic disorder with a female
    preference. Dr. Self explained pedophilic disorder as an abnormal desire to have sex
    with prepubescent children and described the diagnostic criteria for that disorder. He
    indicated the criminal history of Hicks supported that diagnosis. Dr. Self confirmed
    that pedophilic disorder was a chronic condition for Hicks. Dr. Self agreed
    pedophilic disorder is a congenital or acquired condition. Dr. Self opined that it
    affected Hicks’s emotional or volitional capacity as evidenced by the fact that he
    6
    went through the rigors of deferred adjudication once and received messages about
    how wrong the behavior was, then proceeded to do a more egregious thing.
    Dr. Self explained that Hicks’s denial was indicative of a tolerant attitude
    toward sexual assault. Dr. Self did not diagnose Hicks as being antisocial but
    testified he had adult antisocial behaviors related to these sex acts. Dr. Self indicated
    Hicks’s intellectual ability was significantly below average, but he was not
    intellectually disabled. Dr. Self explained that intellectual deficit is associated with
    an increased risk of offensive behavior. Dr. Self considered borderline intellectual
    functioning a risk factor for Hicks and doubted Hicks had good insight into his
    offending. Dr. Self considered Hicks to be a treatment failure. Specifically, Dr. Self
    testified Hicks was kicked out of his second treatment program for “fail[ing] to
    progress,” and he was not attending regularly. Dr. Self explained why it was
    significant that Hicks did not complete the sex offender treatment. Dr. Self told the
    jury that Hicks is currently in a TDCJ treatment program, but he did not learn much
    from reviewing the records except that Hicks had difficulty digesting the material
    and repeatedly failed tests.
    Hicks and Dr. Self also discussed his plans for release, which Dr. Self deemed
    unrealistic. Dr. Self explained that Hicks does not have a good support system in
    place, and Hicks’s plan to avoid sexual re-offense was to stay away from children.
    7
    Dr. Self acknowledged Hicks’s score of 1 on the Static-99R, which indicated
    a low to moderate risk to reoffend; however, Dr. Self testified he did not feel the test
    result was an accurate representation of Hicks’s risk to reoffend. Dr. Self testified
    that Hicks’s risk of re-offense was moderate to high and above average. Dr. Self
    explained the ultimate factors that underline the determination that Hicks has a
    behavior abnormality include the pedophilic disorder, Hicks acting upon it, the
    manner in which he acted upon it, with whom he acted on it, and the projected
    instability of his life upon release. Dr. Self believed Hicks suffers from a behavioral
    abnormality defined in Chapter 841 making him likely to engage in a predatory act
    of sexual violence.
    Psychologist Dr. John Fabian testified as an expert on Hicks’s behalf. Dr.
    Fabian defined a behavioral abnormality by quoting the statute and stated it is “a
    congenital or acquired condition that, by affecting a person[’]s emotional or
    volitional capacity, predisposes a person to commit a sexually violent offense, to the
    extent that the person becomes a menace to the health and safety of another person.”
    Dr. Fabian met with Hicks for several hours in December of 2016. Dr. Fabian
    outlined the records he reviewed prior to meeting with Hicks, which included a sex
    offender risk assessment, police reports, witness statements, TDCJ records, and
    records regarding the prior offense history. Dr. Fabian indicated he reviewed Hicks’s
    8
    life history, offense history, performed a Personality Assessment Inventory, and
    administered an IQ test.
    Additionally, Dr. Fabian testified about the actuarial tests used to assess
    Hicks, including the Static-99R and PCL-R. He also explained how the Static-99R
    measures risk factors. Dr. Fabian agreed it was important to look at dynamic risk
    factors as well, even though they do not appear on the Static-99R. Dr. Fabian
    described how he administers a Static 99 and explained the scoring. He indicated
    Hicks scored a 1 on the Static-99R and described how he arrived at that score. Dr.
    Fabian agreed it was possible for someone to have a score of zero or lower and still
    have a behavioral abnormality, but it was unlikely. He opined Hicks is a low risk to
    reoffend based on his Static-99R score.
    Dr. Fabian also described the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R)
    assessment, which measures criminal personality traits. His testimony revealed he
    did not administer a PCL-R to Hicks, but he scored the instrument as he saw fit based
    on his review of the records, Hicks’s background, and the interview. Dr. Fabian
    testified Hicks scored an 18 on the PCL-R, which indicated Hicks has mild
    psychopathic traits that are below average among other inmates in general inmate
    populations. Dr. Fabian testified the trend is to now look more at dynamic factors
    which do not appear on these tests.
    9
    Dr. Fabian indicated that Hicks’s age lowered his risk to reoffend. He also
    considered that Hicks’s victims were acquaintances, which the doctor claimed
    indicated a lower risk to reoffend than someone who assaults strangers. Finally, Dr.
    Fabian believed that the fifteen-year span between offenses indicated Hicks had
    some control over his behavior. However, Dr. Fabian agreed Hicks’s risk of re-
    offense could elevate if he experienced “negative emotionality.” Dr. Fabian also
    agreed past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. He indicated it was
    important to consider the details of a person’s offense in the evaluation for purposes
    of diagnosis, but the heinousness of the crime is not related to risk. Dr. Fabian agreed
    there was an issue in the age gap of his victims, eighteen months to eleven years,
    which is a diversity in age that was unusual and a risk factor. Dr. Fabian agreed
    Hicks had been in treatment for four months and was still not completely
    acknowledging responsibility. He indicated Hicks was low functioning and it was
    possible that his level of functioning could make it difficult for him to gain insight
    into his sexual offending.
    Although Dr. Fabian diagnosed Hicks with pedophilic disorder and
    considered him to be sexually deviant, he did not believe Hicks had a condition that
    predisposed him to commit a sexually violent offense to the extent he is likely to be
    10
    a menace to the health and safety of another person. He ultimately characterized
    Hicks’s risk of reoffending as low.
    Analysis
    In a civil commitment proceeding under Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and
    Safety Code, the State must prove a person is a sexually violent predator beyond a
    reasonable doubt. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.062(a). To be a “sexually
    violent predator,” an individual: (1) must be a repeat sexually violent offender; and
    (2) suffer from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a
    predatory act of sexual violence. 
    Id. § 841.003(a)
    (West 2017). “Behavioral
    abnormality” is defined by statute to mean “a congenital or acquired condition that,
    by affecting a person’s emotional or volitional capacity, predisposes the person to
    commit a sexually violent offense, to the extent that the person becomes a menace
    to the health and safety of another person.” 
    Id. § 841.002(2)
    (West 2017); see also
    In re Commitment of Almaguer, 
    117 S.W.3d 500
    , 506 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003,
    pet. denied) (“A condition which affects either emotional capacity or volitional
    capacity to the extent a person is predisposed to threaten the health and safety of
    others with acts of sexual violence is an abnormality which causes serious difficulty
    in behavior control.”).
    11
    The parties do not dispute Hicks is a repeat violent sexual offender on appeal. 1
    The parties disagree that he has a behavioral abnormality that makes it likely he will
    engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. In the case before us, the State’s expert
    and defense expert diagnosed Hicks with pedophilic disorder. Likewise, both experts
    considered him to be sexually deviant, and Hicks had previously admitted to having
    “deviant thoughts”. Indeed, the State’s expert characterized Hicks’s offense against
    the eighteen-month-old as “off the charts deviant.” Dr. Self testified that the younger
    the child is, the more deviant the act is, which he considered a risk elevator. Dr. Self
    explained that the persistence of Hicks’s deviant interest after punishment and the
    fact that he engaged in a more deviant act after punishment indicated “he just was
    unable to control himself.”
    Moreover, both experts testified regarding Hicks’s refusal to fully accept
    responsibility and minimization. The State’s expert explained this revealed a tolerant
    attitude about sexual assault, which is a risk factor. The defense expert similarly
    acknowledged with respect to the PCL-R that some of the higher risk behaviors he
    found were criminal versatility, failure to accept responsibility for one’s own
    1
    The trial court granted the State’s motion for directed verdict that Hicks was
    a repeat violent sexual offender.
    12
    actions, conning and manipulative behavior, promiscuous sexual behavior, and
    revocation of conditional release.
    Although Dr. Fabian agreed Hicks suffered from pedophilic disorder, he
    disagreed with the State’s expert that this condition made it likely Hicks would
    reoffend. He relied on Hicks’s Static-99R score, which was 1. Dr. Self categorized
    Hicks’s risk to reoffend as moderate to high and testified the factors that underline
    his determination Hicks has a behavioral abnormality included the pedophilic
    disorder, the fact that he acted on it, the way he acted on it, with whom he acted on
    it, and a projected instability of Hicks’s life upon release. The State’s expert focused
    on the fact Hicks had been through a treatment program for his first offense and was
    aware of how negatively society viewed this behavior yet went on to engage in even
    more deviant behavior afterwards, which indicated a lack of control and a risk factor
    for reoffending. Indeed, even Hicks’s expert acknowledged there is a trend to
    emphasize dynamic factors over static factors.
    At trial, despite his assertions that he took responsibility, Hicks indicated his
    stepdaughter was the instigator when the first offense occurred. Specifically, Hicks’s
    testimony revealed he still believed his eleven-year-old stepdaughter to be a willing
    participant. He told the jury she came on to him repeatedly and there “was a lot of
    13
    times that she tried and I wouldn’t do nothing.” He also admitted during trial that he
    assaulted his stepdaughter while other children slept in the bed with them.
    The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to
    be given their testimony. 
    Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887
    . “It is the fact finder’s
    responsibility to fairly resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and
    draw reasonable inferences from basic to ultimate facts.” In re Commitment of
    Stuteville, 
    463 S.W.3d 543
    , 551 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied)
    (citing 
    Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887
    ). The jury could have discounted the testimony of
    Hicks’s expert entirely, partially, or simply given more credence to the State’s expert
    with respect to Hicks’s risk factors and the likelihood he would reoffend. Both
    experts agreed he suffered from pedophilic disorder, which the United States
    Supreme Court has noted is “a mental abnormality that critically involves what a lay
    person might describe as a lack of control.” See Kansas v. Crane, 
    534 U.S. 407
    , 414
    (2002). The State’s expert felt Hicks was at a moderate to high risk of reoffending
    and explained the underlying factors that led to that conclusion. Where an expert
    witness provides a basis for their opinion and that basis is supported by the record,
    the jury resolves any conflicts or contradictions with respect to the expert’s
    testimony. In re Commitment of Rushing, No. 09–11–00268–CV, 
    2012 WL 4466421
    , at *5 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 27, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing
    14
    Thota v. Young, 
    366 S.W.3d 678
    , 695 (Tex. 2012); City of Keller v. Wilson, 
    168 S.W.3d 802
    , 827 (Tex. 2005)).
    Although the principal issue in a commitment proceeding is whether a person
    is predisposed to sexually violent conduct, in the present case “the diagnosis of [a]
    mental disorder[ ] informed the experts’ opinions regarding whether” Hicks has a
    “behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual
    violence.” See In re Commitment of Williams, No. 09–14–00407–CV, 
    2016 WL 1600789
    , at *4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 21, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). While
    the experts disagreed regarding Hicks’s risk to reoffend by committing a sexually
    violent offense following his release and drew different conclusions from the same
    evidence, each expert articulated their reasoning to the jury and why the evidence
    supported that reasoning. See 
    id. at *5.
    Each expert explained to the jury the factors
    they considered in evaluating Hicks’s risk of reoffending, including the use of the
    actuarial instruments and other dynamic factors, and the jury could determine what
    weight to give to each expert’s testimony. See id.; Rushing, 
    2012 WL 4466421
    , at
    *5.
    Other considerations for the jury were the age of the victims and the fact that
    Hicks assaulted an eighteen-month-old. The jury could have determined that the
    assault on the eighteen-month-old, despite receiving ten years of treatment for a prior
    15
    sexual offense and being punished for the prior offense, was evidence of Hicks’s
    lack of control. The jury also could have placed significant weight on Hicks’s own
    words, in which he attempted to justify the assault against his stepdaughter by stating
    she “came onto him” and was “sexually curious.” The jury was the sole judge of
    Hicks’s credibility and the weight to be given to his testimony, as well. See 
    Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 887
    .
    Conclusion
    When examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we
    determine a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hicks is a
    sexually violent predator, and therefore, the evidence is legally sufficient to support
    the verdict. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.062(a); 
    Mullens, 92 S.W.3d at 885
    , 887. We likewise conclude the evidence is factually sufficient to support the
    jury’s finding. Weighing all the evidence, the verdict does not reflect a risk of
    injustice compelling us to order a new trial. See 
    Day, 342 S.W.3d at 213
    . We
    overrule issues one and two. We affirm the trial court’s judgment and order of
    commitment.
    AFFIRMED.
    ________________________________
    CHARLES KREGER
    Justice
    16
    Submitted on July 9, 2018
    Opinion Delivered March 7, 2019
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.
    17