Judge Stevens Hands Down 40-Year Sentence For Worst Child Abuse Case In History

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Okay. Who is it? Penisha Hawkins? Penisha Hawkins. Was it one case? Yes. [00:00:13] Speaker 2: Two cases. Two cases. [00:00:15] Speaker 1: One's going to be dismissed, if it hadn't already. Is this sentencing today? [00:00:31] Speaker 3: Yes, sir. Okay. Because she had pleaded guilty earlier in 23.41581, injury, first degree felony injury to a child. [00:00:42] Speaker 4: Okay. I've got 5182, 1582. [00:00:46] Speaker 3: 23, 41582. [00:00:59] Speaker 2: Is it due to a child, first degree, both of them? [00:01:04] Speaker 1: Okay. [00:01:09] Speaker 3: There's sentencing hearing on both of them? [00:01:14] Speaker 2: No, sir. One of them is going to be dismissed. We're doing the sentencing on 41582, sorry, 41582. Okay. [00:01:22] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:01:23] Speaker 3: Everything got put in the other side. Okay. Taking all that out. Okay. [00:01:29] Speaker 5: What happened here? [00:01:30] Speaker ?: Okay. Yeah. Okay. [00:01:33] Speaker 3: Already on it. 23.41582 is now called the state of Texas versus Kenesha Hawkins. Correct. Correct. Yes. With your attorney, Mr. Reynolds and the state's attorney. Earlier, you pleaded guilty to the first degree felony of injury to a child in this cause number 41582, causing serious bodily injury to a child 14 years of age or younger by failing to take the child to a medical treatment facility. After it was a parent, the child needed immediate medical intervention and you had a duty as parent to take care of that child. A pre-sentence report has been prepared. If the parties had an opportunity to review it, are there any corrections or changes to it? State? Not from the state. No. then the pre-sentence report is made a part of the record for all purposes here. The agreement in this case is whatever sentence shall not exceed a cap of 40 years confinement in prison. So we are looking at, correct me if I'm wrong, no less than five, no more than 40 years confinement in prison. Deferred or unadjudicated probation is an option or not? I think so. I believe it is. Is regular probation an option on this as well? [00:03:17] Speaker 1: I think so. [00:03:18] Speaker 2: Yes, sir. There's no deadly weapon. There's no deadly weapon. [00:03:20] Speaker 3: All right. So there are three options here, as I understand. It's a 3G, if it's changed. I don't know. [00:03:27] Speaker 2: Yeah. I'll take it maybe under the legal limit since there's a dash. [00:03:32] Speaker 5: You'll... If it's under A1, it's, uh, you can't give a straight probation. If it's under A1, it's, uh, you can't give a straight probation. If it's a 1st degree and the victim of the offense is a child, then you can't. [00:04:25] Speaker 3: And that's what this alleges. [00:04:27] Speaker 4: Yes. I don't believe you can give regular probation. [00:04:29] Speaker 3: So it's just the two options are deferred or unadjudicated probation and flat time. Yes. Is that what everybody agreed? [00:04:40] Speaker 5: This is 22 and four. I have 14 years of age or younger than... I don't see anything in the eligibility program for... [00:05:25] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program for... [00:05:50] Speaker 5: Where are you on the... 42A-102. [00:05:55] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. [00:06:00] Speaker 5: I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. [00:06:04] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. [00:06:07] Speaker 5: I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. [00:06:09] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program for that. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:06:57] Speaker 6: So you're stating she is eligible for deferred? Correct. I think she is. For unenjudicated probation. She is. But. [00:07:06] Speaker 3: But not regular probation under 42A.054. [00:07:20] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:21] Speaker 5: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:23] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:24] Speaker 5: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:25] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:26] Speaker 5: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:28] Speaker 3: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:29] Speaker ?: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:31] Speaker 3: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. [00:07:34] Speaker 2: I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I don't see anything in the eligibility program. I'd like to testify to Paul Frank Coughlin from the Beaumont Police Department. He's president of the courtroom. Come forward. [00:07:42] Speaker 3: Where's your right answer? Do you sound with swear or affirm any statement you make during this hearing? Shall I be the truth? The whole truth ended nothing but the truth. So help you God. Yes, sir. Lower your hand. [00:08:04] Speaker 1: She can come up here. [00:08:06] Speaker ?: C-O-F-F-I-N. I call him. [00:08:08] Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. Detective, how are you employed? I work with the Beaumont Police Department. And how long have you worked with them? [00:08:13] Speaker 7: Since August of 2002. [00:08:14] Speaker 2: And were you the person who investigated this injury to a child that occurred back on September 29th of 2022? [00:08:34] Speaker 7: Yes, sir. [00:08:35] Speaker 2: And at that time when the investigation started, I know that it wasn't apparent what was going on. [00:08:45] Speaker 7: Is that correct? Not immediately. [00:08:47] Speaker 2: No, sir. After a little while, though, did you start getting some conflicting stories from the defendant? [00:08:52] Speaker 7: Yes, sir. We did. We were able to interview the defendant over approximately 16 hours and received many conflicting stories. [00:09:03] Speaker 2: Did you also get conflicting stories that contradicted what she said from other witnesses? Yes, sir. [00:09:10] Speaker 7: We did. [00:09:11] Speaker 2: And during these stories, was there anything that caused you concern about whether or not she had actually caused the injuries to this child? [00:09:22] Speaker 7: Yes, it became clear that she had caused the injuries to this child. [00:09:27] Speaker 2: Now, she did not plead to that in here. You understand that? [00:09:31] Speaker 7: I do understand. [00:09:32] Speaker 2: Were there several people that you talked to, aunts and other relatives that tried to get her to take the baby to the doctor? [00:09:41] Speaker 7: We extensively spoke with all the family members. By the way, she has a great family. They're solid people. Her aunts and her father, some of the best people that I know, dealing with investigations. And they all urged her. They saw that this child was in severe distress and urged her to take her to the doctor. [00:10:08] Speaker 2: Now, it turns out the doctors came up with and the judges looked at the pre-sentence report that the baby had developed sepsis. Is that correct? [00:10:16] Speaker 7: Yes, sir. [00:10:17] Speaker 2: And when looking at the way that the defendant was handling this, did she appear to be distraught over what was going on with her baby? [00:10:28] Speaker 7: No, sir. [00:10:29] Speaker 2: Not at all. Did it appear to you that she was just trying to be deceptive throughout the process? Yes, sir. [00:10:37] Speaker 7: She did not want to be called as the one that had done this. [00:10:42] Speaker 2: Was there something when the baby was at the hospital? Even at the hospital? Was there something that the mother was showing concern at the hospital? No. [00:10:50] Speaker 7: As a matter of fact, she called the doctors liars. [00:10:54] Speaker 2: Was the baby on life support almost the entire time it was in the hospital? The entire time. [00:10:59] Speaker 7: The doctor said that the baby wouldn't survive off of life support. And ultimately, that's what happened when they removed him. [00:11:10] Speaker 2: Do you, talking to the doctors, could this baby have been saved if they had been taken to the doctor after the injuries? [00:11:17] Speaker 7: Immediately after, they said that there was a very good chance that the baby would have been saved. [00:11:23] Speaker 2: Now, y'all worked diligently on this case over many, many months, didn't you? [00:11:29] Speaker 7: This is the only thing we've worked on for myself and my partner, Sergeant Keen. This is the only case we worked on for about three, three and a half months. [00:11:39] Speaker 2: And is the reason for that because, first of all, that this was such a young child? Absolutely. [00:11:48] Speaker 7: And it was, of course, such a young child. And she tried to lay blame to so many different people to cover her tracks that we had to clear that. [00:12:01] Speaker 2: So you had to go through and rule out every story that she gave? [00:12:05] Speaker 7: Every story she gave, she tried to say, Judge, that all of her aunts had done this to this baby instead of her. [00:12:16] Speaker 2: And you've seen the story she's come up with this time, right? [00:12:20] Speaker 7: This late stage false fabrication that she's come up with now directly goes against the doctor's findings, our investigation, and her own previous statements that she's made to us of repeated interviews. [00:12:39] Speaker 2: So was there anything that she ever said that came out to be true when you were doing this investigation? [00:12:47] Speaker 7: The only thing that she said that was truthful is after a period of time, she said that she knows that she should have brought the child to the doctor because it was a severe disease. [00:13:03] Speaker 2: Anything else you want to add that you wanted to judge to? [00:13:09] Speaker 7: Just one other thing, Judge, I was hoping that with this late false narrative that she's given directly goes against what I would think to be -- to show that she's really sorry for this and to show, you know, some character. But I guess I was wrong. We've never heard anything about some teenager and falling down the stairs. Nothing like that. As a matter of fact, she said that she put the baby in the crib before the baby had the medical incident. The baby was fine, said she drank three bottles of milk and was playing and cooing. Or the doctor said that was impossible. The doctors at UTMB, Judge, said this was the worst case of eye damage that they'd ever seen. They said that the first doctor that looked at this didn't know what she was looking at and had to get another physician to come in to make sure that she was right of the detached witness in the baby's eyes. [00:14:28] Speaker 2: You've dealt with a lot. How does this one rank? [00:14:30] Speaker 7: This is one of the worst cases I've ever seen, Judge. [00:14:36] Speaker 4: Thank you. I'll pass away this gentleman. The baby was brought to Baptist Hospital. Yes, sir. By the mother or by EMT. Thanks. Are you talking to me? Yes, to you. [00:14:50] Speaker 7: Okay. [00:14:51] Speaker 4: Yes. And the doctors there at Baptist Hospital examined the baby, didn't they? They did. And the doctors said that they couldn't find any sign of trauma at the Baptist Hospital. [00:15:02] Speaker 7: At first, they did tell us that, but once the baby got to UTMB. Okay. Well, I'm talking about Baptist Hospital. [00:15:10] Speaker 4: Yes. And they have fine doctors there at Baptist Hospital, don't they? I can't talk about the fine doctor. But the doctor. The doctors missed it. The doctors missed it. Yes. Clearly. Okay. And now, my client is not a doctor. Clearly. [00:15:30] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:15:31] Speaker 4: So, she missed it and the doctors at Baptist missed it, but they picked it up at UTMB. [00:15:37] Speaker ?: Yes? [00:15:38] Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. Pass the witness, Judge. [00:15:42] Speaker 2: Detective, they didn't miss the sepsis though, did they? They did not. The baby was actually, the heart had stopped, is that correct? [00:15:49] Speaker 7: From the sepsis, from the violent attack that had been on this child, the sepsis caused the medical incident that occurred. [00:15:59] Speaker 2: That was when the forensic pathologist looked at it and found that that's what caused the actual sepsis to occur. Is that correct? Yes. Injuries. And the fact that the doctors missed the injuries, they didn't miss the sepsis when it got there. They did not miss the sepsis. That's what they were treating it for when it first got there. Is that right? Yes, sir. To save its life. Yes, sir. Pass the witness. [00:16:21] Speaker 1: Anything else? [00:16:22] Speaker 2: No further mission. [00:16:23] Speaker 4: Okay. [00:16:24] Speaker 6: Make sure. Whatever you're saying. [00:16:26] Speaker 2: Just an argument, Judge. [00:16:28] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:16:29] Speaker 6: Go ahead. Yeah. [00:16:31] Speaker 3: And by the way, before that occurred, the report is made a part of this hearing for all purposes. And there is a. There's a letter here from a Desica, Desica Hawkins, who is writing on for her sister. That's your sister. Yes. It's in the court's file that the court has read. And then Anthony Hawkins wrote something. And Mr. Hawkins is your father? Yes, sir. Not. He's not a stepfather. He's your. He's not a stepfather. He's your. He's not a father. Natural. Yes. Okay. Okay. [00:17:40] Speaker ?: I think I got that. [00:17:41] Speaker 3: Okay. I think that was the one. All the supplements to the pre-sentence report. Go ahead, State. You can go, begin and end. [00:17:55] Speaker 2: When you read this pre-sentence report, it's long and it's long because there's a lot of facts to this. There was a lot that went on and a lot of things that this defendant could have prevented. And I'm going to stick with the not taking the baby to the doctor. According to the doctors, when it got to UTMB, that there's, there's no way this baby was fine. Even just hours before the baby stopped breathing and having seizures and things, it was, it was, it was apparent that this baby had been sick for a while and it was seriously ill. And they did everything they could to try to save the baby, but the baby. I keep calling it baby Decaden was dying and was dying because the mother who lied to her relatives, who said, try to take her to the doctor. She told her boyfriend or her friend or neighbor upstairs that she had taken him to the doctor when she hadn't. We had all the doctors check and she canceled the appointments for the baby. She did everything not to take care of this baby. And that's, that's what a mother is supposed to do. And that's why in this, in this particular instance, it's, it's just a shame because this baby is only six months old, seven, when I think Decaden died. But Decaden was only a little over five months old, almost six months old, whenever this happened. And then seven months old when the baby died and it, and it's, and it's sad because Decaden depended totally on the care that was given by her mom, by his mom. And shouldn't have shouldn't have had anything happen to them. They there's no, no record of anything going on specifically in the mom's life, except at that time, that weekend when that baby was injured, it was, or was around that time that she was injured. He was injured was her birthday. And she wanted to go out and spend a couple of days for her birthday. So she, the defendant went out and had a great time. When the baby became sick, baby was throwing up, having issues, and she did not take it to the doctor when she should have. And, and, and, and Decaden stayed in the hospital even after the baby, Decaden is, is in the hospital and mom can do what's merciful and take Decaden off the life support. She refused and they had to actually take action to get the father to, to be able to take this child off the life support because it had been, it had been deceased for weeks and was just laying there. While that's happening, there's a video of her out twerking at a bar one night while her baby's still on life support. And then when she gets arrested and thrown in jail, instead of showing the remorse and acting like the nice person that she is, you've seen the jail records. You've seen, you've seen the, the, the comments about the disciplinaries that she's had over the last few months in jail, where she just keeps acting up. She's not, she's not a good person. She's not a person that goes in and does what she's supposed to do and follows the rules and just, just takes care of business to show respect for what is going on in the gravity of the situation. It's all about her judge, this whole thing. Every time I read this and I've read the offense reports, I've gone through everything and listened to her statements over and over. And all I hear is it's all about her. Thank goodness her other children have been taken away and she's not going to have those. And I think that I wish we'd have taken away, but we didn't know until it was too late. But I asked this court to give her the 40 years. I think it's a fair offer. I don't think there's anything less that could be fair. In this situation. All right, for the defense. Go ahead. She has no criminal history, judge. [00:21:52] Speaker 4: And from day one, Ms. Hawkins has always, at least to me, been remorseful about what happened to Ducatin. And she expected to, and she accepted responsibility for not bringing to the doctor in time. And as a mother, she's lost her child and she lives daily. But the fact that she didn't seek the medical attention, that baby could have helped or saved his life. Also, judge, at the time that the case happened, at the instant that she called EMTs and brought her child to the hospital, to Baptist Hospital, the doctors, the professionals, could not find any evidence of trauma. They found evidence of sepsis. And these are trained doctors with CT scans. And they couldn't figure out what was wrong with the child. And they sent the child to UTMB, which in the end turned up severe, lingering, chronic injuries to Ducatin. Now, my point is, if the doctors can't figure out what's wrong with the child, how could Ms. Hawkins figure out what was wrong with the child? But she knew there was something wrong. And as a mother with protective instincts, she feels she let her child down. I think 40 years is severe, but she will accept responsibility. And I think the court should go to maybe the lower end of the range. And Anisha, you want to double judge anything? Yes. Okay. [00:23:48] Speaker 8: The statement Detective Kaufman just made was absolutely not true. And my family is here in the court today to attest to that. [00:23:56] Speaker 3: To what? [00:23:57] Speaker 8: That they did not urge me. They thought the same thing that I thought, that he was teething. We did not know that he was hurt. [00:24:05] Speaker 3: He was teething? [00:24:07] Speaker 8: The only thing that was wrong with him that he was showing signs that was irritableness. Irritableness. That was it. He did not show signs that he had an internal injury that could cause him dead. That is absolutely not true. My family has 100% support me. They never went against me on that. Ever. They did the same thing three days prior to my birthday, which was September 22nd. He went with them. He went with them on actually September, my birthday was September 22nd. That was a Thursday. He went with them on September 23rd on a Friday. He was there from September 23rd to September 25th. They had him in their care. If they ever felt like he needed immediate medical attention, they would have took them. Took him his themselves. They got Orgel and Tylenol because they felt the same thing that I thought. I never lied to Detective King. I did not. At the time, going through the process, I was numb too. My child is in the hospital. I don't know. That's all the shock. I'm numb. I'm not even in my body. I'm not even here. I don't think this is really my life. So, yes, some details I forgot to tell him. Like I left him with someone for two hours. But I always told him, the question he asked me was, did my children handle it? My children at the time were five and two years old. My children never handled you. Okay. The children upstairs, the teenager and the eight, seven and six year old did. [00:25:36] Speaker 3: Oh, so it's somebody else's fault? Children? [00:25:40] Speaker 8: No. For allowing them to even take care of what I say. [00:25:43] Speaker 3: Okay. What's that caused the injuries? The children caused it? The children caused it? Let me speak. She can't take down everything when two people are speaking one time. Yes, sir. I'm going to ask you questions on this so that we can kind of have a dialogue. Are you saying someone else caused the injuries, not you? [00:25:59] Speaker 8: Physically? Yes, sir. Who? A child. [00:26:03] Speaker 3: Which child? Upstairs neighbors. And I told them that they can go play back the video to see them, them taking him upstairs and then bringing him back down and telling me. [00:26:07] Speaker 8: Did you see them harm the child? [00:26:08] Speaker 3: I wasn't in the house. [00:26:09] Speaker 8: Did you see them harm the child? [00:26:10] Speaker 3: No, sir. I wasn't in the house. [00:26:12] Speaker 8: Did you see them harm the child? No, sir. I wasn't in the house. They came back and told me that they dropped him. How long did they give the child? About 15 minutes, 20 minutes. Okay. [00:26:19] Speaker 3: Keep going. [00:26:20] Speaker 8: I take full responsibility for getting my child to the hospital. I take full responsibility for making me out to be this monster. I heard my child. [00:26:26] Speaker 3: I didn't care. [00:26:27] Speaker 8: That's a lie. That's a lie. [00:26:29] Speaker 1: And of course, I'm a mother. [00:26:31] Speaker ?: I'm losing my child. [00:26:32] Speaker 8: I don't want to take him off life support. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I don't want to take him off life support. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I don't want to take him off life support. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I'm losing my child. I don't want to take him off life support. I couldn't make that decision. I could not make that decision. I couldn't. I didn't want to let him go. I didn't. [00:26:59] Speaker 3: So what about that? That's what they said. [00:27:03] Speaker 8: I made the selfish decision of not taking him off life support. That was the state's statement. That's not true. I just could not let my child go because I was in the hospital. [00:27:14] Speaker 3: Is that why you didn't bring the child to help? To medical? He was hurt. [00:27:19] Speaker 8: Is that what you're saying? [00:27:20] Speaker 3: That was why you hesitated bringing the child for medical help? I didn't know. Okay. I understand what you're trying to say. I didn't know. [00:27:28] Speaker 8: I didn't know he was hurt. I did not know. [00:27:30] Speaker 3: Okay. What else? What else? [00:27:34] Speaker 8: I've been a single mother since I became a woman. [00:27:39] Speaker 3: A lot of single mothers are out there. [00:27:41] Speaker 8: I've been a single mother. I've never had an instance where any of my children have been hurt or anything like that. [00:27:50] Speaker ?: this happened in Chicago. [00:27:51] Speaker 8: And I blame myself every day for a lot of the things I didn't allow with other kids. I'm not a monster. I'm not a monster. I don't work. I can't. I can't. [00:28:04] Speaker 3: Let me ask you, how old was the child when this happened? [00:28:09] Speaker 1: It was five months old. [00:28:11] Speaker 3: Five months? [00:28:12] Speaker 1: Yes. [00:28:13] Speaker ?: Yeah. [00:28:14] Speaker 3: There's some parts here in this report that say seven months. [00:28:19] Speaker 2: That's when the baby died. I don't know. [00:28:22] Speaker 8: Six months. [00:28:23] Speaker 4: He was in the hospital for a couple of months. [00:28:25] Speaker 8: He was in the hospital for a total of a month. [00:28:28] Speaker 3: Okay. Go ahead. [00:28:30] Speaker 8: I'm just not a monster and my joke behavior is me defending this. Because people are going along with what's been put on the news. So I'm defending this. I'm not, I'm just, I'm not what they Trump making out to be. I've never been to Trump. My kids have never been to Trump. Like you said, I have an amazing family. I have the support. I'm not a problem. I'm not a problem. But I take no responsibility for the misjudgment and mistake of it. But not taking the task. All right. [00:29:08] Speaker 3: Anything else? Anything else you'd like to add? No, sir. That's true. Okay. Here's the sentence report, which has been presented. And it's part of the record, which was introduced and made a part of the record without objection. So we're just going to refer to a couple of these. And what we're dealing with is medical science here. This isn't a soft science. This is a hard science, medical science. So this states that the detectives interviewed you at the hospital, where you provided information, and initial, where you provided no information about any recent injury or significant illness. Initial medical assessments indicated a severe blood infection, which I guess that's what you had told the authorities, that there was a blood infection or something. [00:30:18] Speaker 8: No, that's what they found. [00:30:19] Speaker 3: Well, they indicated a severe blood infection, but no obvious external trauma, suggesting the case might be medical rather than criminal. Nevertheless, standard procedure in child death and severe injury cases, then the authorities then further researched this matter. And the detectives went to the residence where the child was living. And this states that the bassinet's padding was heavily soaked with liquid, far exceeding what would be expected from a single infant's urination. And a preliminary forensic assessment was made over the following days at John Seeley Children's Hospital, which diagnosed the child with severe abusive head trauma. Dr. Patricia Beach, pediatrician and forensic child abuse specialist there, documented bilateral widespread retinal hemorrhages in all layers of the child's eyes with bilateral retinal detachment. And subdural brain hemorrhage with traumatic insulopathy and very significant injuries overall to the child. The doctor noted that the symptoms were compatible with head trauma. The child's condition deteriorated rapidly, became comatose, was placed on child support. And because of the diagnosis of severe brain injury, became clinically brain dead with no hope of recovery and was rendered blind by the extensive eye damage. He also experienced multiple organ damage due to oxygen deprivation. This was, according to the doctor at John Seeley, the worst case of detached retina ever seen, along with more than one area of bleeding on the brain. The doctor later explained to investigators that jacadens suffered severe sepsis caused by intestinal bacteria leakage, which stemmed from brain injury that impaired the organ to function properly. She demonstrated that the injuries resulted from violent shaking, which lasted 60 to 90 seconds and placed the most severe recent traumatic event in the brain. The most severe recent traumatic event between September 20th and the 22nd, which was just a few days before the child's death. Dr. Beach confirmed that the CPR performed by the officers could not have caused any of the injuries and suggested that early medical intervention could have improved the outcome. A skeletal survey performed later revealed numerous fractures to various stages of healing. These are old injuries of healing across multiple ribs, arms, legs of the child, indicating repeated episodes of extremely violent shaking over time. Dr. Beach concluded that the constellation of injuries, severe brain hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages, eye detachments, and multiple fractures of the child's body was highly indicative of abusive head trauma inflicted on more than one occasion between the months of August and September. The Galveston County medical examiner, Dr. Bornhart, reviewed the autopsy findings and similarly determined that the injuries were consistent with abusive trauma. [00:34:55] Speaker ?: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury were consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. [00:34:57] Speaker 3: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. [00:35:06] Speaker ?: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach proved that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. [00:35:09] Speaker 2: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. [00:35:28] Speaker ?: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. [00:35:28] Speaker 2: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with abusive trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. [00:35:40] Speaker ?: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. [00:35:40] Speaker 2: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. [00:35:47] Speaker ?: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. [00:35:51] Speaker 3: Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. Dr. Beach concluded that the injury was consistent with trauma. So, three of the defendant's aunts who cared for the child, each provided consistent accounts of the child's symptoms, they repeatedly urged the defendant to address them medically. Dr. Beach concluded that the defendant repeatedly minimized or denied these symptoms and claimed that she had indeed sought medical care, which was a statement later disproven by phone records, text message, and medical office confirmations as well as other witness accounts. Dr. Beach said, "The defendant's behavior on the evening before Jacaden was removed from life support and died was captured in a short video obtained by the investigators. The video showed the defendant dancing at a nightclub. When confronted with the footage during an interview, she confirmed it was her who was dancing and responded that, 'What's your point?' Dr. Beach said, "When informed that the video was taken on the night immediately preceding the planned removal of her critically ill infant son from life support." The investigator states that such behavior stands in stark contrast to the image of a grieving mother who had otherwise, that she had otherwise presented to investigators and medical staff. And it certainly contradicts the way you're talking about what happened to me. That was true? You were dancing the night away before the child is clinically rendered dead? [00:37:54] Speaker 8: I do not think that was the night before he was taken off. [00:37:56] Speaker 3: I'm sorry. That's what they say. I don't remember. [00:37:58] Speaker 8: You don't? [00:37:59] Speaker 3: Now you don't recall? [00:38:00] Speaker 8: I'm saying I don't remember when it happened. [00:38:02] Speaker 3: I think things like that would be probably blazed into your memory, wouldn't it? I mean, isn't this important? So, the percentage report in the probation office states, in summary, that the incident reports document a lengthy and consistent pattern of disruptive, aggressive, and non-compliant behavior by the defendant. So, after incarceration from February 23 through May of 26 at the Jefferson County Correctional Facility, the defendant repeatedly refuses to follow oral and written directives, argues with staff, creates excessive noise, openly disregards institutional rules. Her conduct frequently escalates into verbal confrontations with both officers and other inmates, and on many interactions include hostile, profane language, and personal insults directed to the staff. The reports describe multiple instances in which you instigated or actively participated in physical altercations. These include fights involving the throwing of objects, striking other inmates with close fists, stomping, or attempting to advance toward others despite officers' attempts to restrain you, and in several instances, spitting on other inmates. Several fights required staff intervention through physical restraint, spray deployment, and on one occasion, the use of a taser when all other measures failed for you to gain compliance with the rules. You are also frequently involved in group disturbances, either as an instigator or an active participant, contributing to heightened tensions and unsafe conditions within the dorms and recreation yards at the jail. In addition to aggression, you regularly violate procedures and security rules, including entering unauthorized areas, refusing to rack up, go to bed during required times, returning to the dorm without permission, engaging in unauthorized communication with inmates in other areas, and failing to wear your uniform properly. There were repeated disciplinary actions for possessing or creating contraband, such as extra bedding, hidden razor, tattooing implements, ink containers, and a self-inflicted piercing. Reports also note instances of hygiene violations, unauthorized use of equipment, and attempts to evade or undermine officer authority by influencing other inmates or encouraging noncompliance among the dorm population. Many officers report that your behavior often disrupts institutional operations, including medical pass, chow, head counts, and normal dorm function. Your conduct is repeatedly described as inciting other inmates, creating hostile or unsafe environments, and contributing to escalating conflicts. And several reports portray you as openly dismissive with consequences and frequently stating that you did not care about receiving write-ups or restrictions. In later reports, officers have expressed concern that you demonstrate no sign of rehabilitation, continued endangerment to others, and attempting to intimidate the staff and some other officers, officers, describing your behavior as hateful, threatening, or intentionally defiant. [00:41:47] Speaker ?: All right. [00:41:48] Speaker 3: Well, those are all going to get you gold stars. Anything to add by any of the police? Anything, Ms. Hawkins, you would like to add? You get to speak, Lance. If nothing further, the court is going to follow this agreement of a cap of 40 years confinement. So within that, we are looking at no less than 5 or 40, no more than 40 years confinement in prison. And how did we ever decide on the deferred or unadjudicated probation? [00:42:33] Speaker 4: I believe she's eligible for that. [00:42:35] Speaker 3: She's eligible for that. But regular probation is not an eligibility. Correct. [00:42:40] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:42:41] Speaker 3: The defendant has pleaded guilty voluntarily to this first-degree felony of injury to a child by causing serious bodily injury to Jacaden Shaw, a child 14 years of age or younger. And actually, we now know that the child was five months here on this earth at the time of the child's death. And the defendant is accused also in this indictment, since she pleaded guilty to, of failing to take the child to a medical treatment facility or to a medical professional. After it, it was obviously apparent that the child required immediate medical intervention. And what's more, under law, the defendant had a statutory and legal duty to act responsibly and timely as the defendant was a parent of the child. And this states that is a crime of first-degree felony injury to a child against the peace and dignity of the state signed by the foreperson of the grand jury. And there was sufficient evidence supporting the defendant's guilt from State's Exhibit 1 admitted at a hearing where the defendant pleaded guilty voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently, and with legal advice and legal assistance. There was enough evidence presented to support the defendant's plea of guilty to find the defendant guilty of this first-degree felony of injury to this child of five months of age. This court now finds the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this first-degree felony injury to a child. The court is following a disagreement of whatever sentence shall not exceed 40 years in prison. And this court, who has two children, three grandchildren, knows intimately that children are two things: gifts from our Creator. Our Creator, number one. Number two, that as infants, they are helpless to take care of themselves. And that's why we have not only a legal duty, but a spiritual duty to take care of children, especially children as young as five months of age. This court has read into the record innumerable circumstances where you have absolutely failed and neglected your responsibility given by our Creator and our law. "I now find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you are hereby sentenced to confinement in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to serve a term of 40 years' confinement." The death of the death of a child. What is the cost? What is the right punishment? A child's loss is maybe the greatest loss that humans deal with on this planet. A child's loss. And I can't say enough about the special treatment that must be given to children from our Creator. And you totally failed, and not only failed, but attempted to blame others for your irresponsibility. I just wish we could have somehow, before this happened, convinced you of the importance and the responsibility that you had to your child, and how that was vital to the child's existence. This is the order of the court, and we are in recess in this case. [00:47:09] Speaker 5: Thank you.