Opinion
No. 04-16-00141-CV
11-30-2016
IN THE MATTER OF L.E.A.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013JUV01655A
Honorable Laura Parker, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice AFFIRMED
The Honorable Laura Parker adopted the recommendation of the Honorable Pat J. Garza who presided over the hearing on the State's fifth motion to modify disposition. --------
L.E.A. appeals the trial court's order modifying his disposition. L.E.A. contends the trial court erred in overruling his objections to testimony from a probation officer who lacked personal knowledge of L.E.A.'s probation history. L.E.A. further contends that he was harmed by the admission of the testimony because, in the absence of that testimony, the evidence would be legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that the allegations in the State's fifth motion to modify disposition were true. We affirm the trial court's order.
BACKGROUND
The State filed a fifth motion to modify L.E.A.'s disposition alleging L.E.A. violated the first condition of his probation requiring him to obey all laws by intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly causing bodily injury to J.B. by striking J.B. with his hand. At the beginning of the hearing on the State's motion, the trial court took judicial notice "of the judgments and [L.E.A.'s] most recent conditions of probation signed on November 16, 2015, that [were] in the Court's file." The judgments included an order of adjudication from the State's first amended fourth motion to modify disposition which was heard on November 16, 2015.
Paula McClure, a juvenile corrections officer, testified she is responsible for reviewing security camera video recorded at the Cyndi Taylor Krier juvenile detention facility. McClure identified State's exhibit 1 as a DVD she prepared from the security camera video.
Ernest Juarez, another juvenile corrections officer at the facility, identified L.E.A. as a resident of the facility. As State's exhibit 1 was played, Juarez identified the people involved in an altercation in the lunch room which was shown on the video. Juarez heard L.E.A. say "I'm not a bitch" and, as Juarez turned toward L.E.A., he saw L.E.A. on top of J.B. punching him. J.B. was another resident of the facility. After the officers separated L.E.A. and J.B., L.E.A was able to get away from the officer restraining him and again proceeded to attack J.B. Juarez testified he never saw J.B. trying to fight back but only saw him trying to cover himself with his hands over his face and head. Although Juarez did not personally observe the first hit, Juarez testified L.E.A. was the first aggressor based on his review of the video before trial.
J.B. testified that prior to lunch, he was in the gym talking to another resident when L.E.A. kicked his foot as he walked past him. After J.B. told him, "Watch out, bitch," L.E.A. proceeded to try to choke J.B. The altercation ended when they were told to get dressed. Later, while at lunch, L.E.A. told J.B., "This is for calling me a bitch," and proceeded to hit J.B. in the face with his hand and stomp on his head with his foot. After the officers separated them, L.E.A. broke free and continued to beat J.B. with his fists. On cross-examination, J.B. denied he tripped L.E.A. in the gym.
Mark Nagus, a juvenile probation officer, testified he was assigned L.E.A.'s case on February 5, 2015, when L.E.A. was placed on nine months' probation from February 5, 2015, to November 30, 2015. As reflected in the orders of which the trial court had taken judicial notice, L.E.A. next appeared in court on November 16, 2015. On that date, Nagus testified L.E.A.'s probation was extended for a period of eighteen months and he was placed in the care and custody of the chief juvenile probation officer. Nagus stated he reviewed the conditions for L.E.A.'s extended probation with L.E.A. on November 16, 2015, and witnessed L.E.A. sign the conditions. When L.E.A. asked Nagus what he could do to get out of the Krier facility earlier, Nagus explained to him that he needed to behave at the Krier facility and would lose points if he had any security infractions.
After hearing the foregoing, the trial court found the allegation in the State's fifth motion to modify, i.e., that L.E.A. violated the conditions of his probation by causing bodily injury to J.B., to be true. Based on its finding, the trial court signed an order on March 1, 2016, modifying L.E.A.'s disposition by continuing L.E.A. on probation in the care, custody and control of the chief juvenile probation officer for a period of eighteen months.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court has broad discretion to determine a suitable disposition for a juvenile who has been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent behavior, especially in proceedings to modify the juvenile's disposition. In re E.K.G., 487 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court acts unreasonably or arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles." Id. The legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's factual findings underlying the disposition order are relevant factors in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. at 676.
"In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's findings, we consider evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable fact finder could and disregard evidence contrary to the finding unless a reasonable fact finder could not." Id. "Anything more than a scintilla of evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding." Id. "When reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding, we set aside the finding only if, after considering and weighing all of the evidence in the record pertinent to the finding, we determine that the credible evidence supporting the finding is so weak, or so contrary to the overwhelming weight of all the evidence, that the finding should be set aside." Id.
DISCUSSION
L.E.A. contends the evidence would be legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that he violated a condition of his probation if the trial court had properly sustained his objections to the portions of Nagus's testimony that were not based on personal knowledge. Even if we assume the trial court erred in overruling L.E.A.'s objections, however, L.E.A. cannot establish he was harmed by the trial court's rulings because we hold the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's findings even if we exclude the portions of Nagus's testimony for which L.E.A. contends Nagus had no personal knowledge.
Nagus testified he was L.E.A.'s probation officer on November 16, 2015, when L.E.A. appeared in court on the State's first amended fourth motion to modify his disposition. Therefore, Nagus had personal knowledge that L.E.A.'s probation was extended for a period of eighteen months and L.E.A. was placed at the Krier facility in the care and custody of the chief juvenile probation officer. Nagus also had personal knowledge of the conditions of probation imposed during this extended probation period, and testified he personally reviewed those conditions with L.E.A. who signed them. The trial court took judicial notice of those terms and conditions which included a condition that L.E.A. obey the laws. The State's fifth motion to modify alleged L.E.A. violated the first condition of his probation by striking J.B. with his hand, and Juarez and J.B. both testified L.E.A. punched J.B. in the face. The trial court also saw a video of the altercation. Therefore, even absent the testimony L.E.A. contends was not based on personal knowledge, the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that L.E.A. violated a condition of his probation by causing bodily injury to J.B.
CONCLUSION
The trial court's order is affirmed.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice