"Further, the trial court may assign different weights to the factors it considers, and it may consider unlisted but relevant factors." In re D.T., 217 S.W.3d 741, 743 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.) (citing In re R.G., 994 S.W.2d at 312). IV. EVIDENCE

We review the trial court's decision to transfer appellant from the youth commission to TDCJ for an abuse of discretion. In re D.T., 217 S.W.3d 741, 743 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). If we find some evidence in the record that supports the trial court's decision, there is no abuse of discretion and we will affirm the trial court's order. Id.

Considering the record as a whole, we cannot conclude that the trial court here acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to any guiding rules and principles when it ordered that P.S. be transferred to TDCJ. See, e.g., A.M., 2017 WL 2812452, at *5 (holding similarly); In re D.T., 217 S.W.3d 741, 743-44 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (holding transfer was within discretion where appellant had sexually assaulted seven-year-old boy and his in-custody accomplishments were overshadowed by continued disciplinary problems). We therefore hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion and overrule P.S.'s sole issue.

We review the district court's decision to transfer J.A. from the youth commission to the TDCJ for an abuse of discretion. In re D.T., 217 S.W.3d 741, 743 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); In re C.L., 874 S.W.2d 880, 886 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, no writ).

Evidence of each factor is not required, and the trial court need not consider every factor. In re D.T., 217 S.W.3d 741, 743 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). Further, the trial court may assign different weights to the factors it considers, and it may consider unlisted but relevant factors.

We cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the transfer. See In re D.T., 217 S.W.3d 741, 744 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.); In re J.L.C., 160 S.W.3d 312, 314 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.).