was also reviewed by Geppert’s supervisor and by the staffing committee. Rodriguez was sixteen and a half years old at the time of his detention, and he displayed behavior in line with his age. Geppert testified Rodriguez was sophisticated and mature and, at times, even felt he was manipulating the conversation. Rodriguez was able to understand the seriousness of the charge against him and the difference between a juvenile and a criminal proceeding. See Gonzales, 467 S.W.3d at 600 (citing understanding of proceedings and charge as evidence of sophistication and maturity). Geppert relayed Rodriguez was able to communicate with the employees, teachers, and other detainees at the detention center. See Matter of S.E.C., 605 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Geppert explained, I believe that he is
holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension holding that stop of appellant was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion where anonymous 911 caller said that she had seen suspect pull gun out of his pocket 911 caller described suspect and suspects location responding officer located appellant near stated location appellant matched description and no one else in vicinity matched description holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement holding that the appellant waived this argument holding psychiatrists description of appellant as cooperative candid and very articulate supported finding that appellant was sophisticated