Opinion
No. 04-07-00069-CV
Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2007.
Appeal from the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2006-JUV-02893A, Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding.
Sitting: ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from the trial court's disposition in a juvenile matter, sentencing appellant to confinement with the Texas Youth Commission ("TYC"). In a single issue on appeal, appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it committed him to TYC. We disagree, and affirm.
A trial judge has broad discretion to determine a suitable disposition for a child who has been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct. In re T.A.F., 977 S.W.2d 386, 387 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.). The Texas Family Code permits a trial judge to commit a child to TYC if: (1) it is in the child's best interest to be placed outside the home; (2) reasonable efforts have been taken to prevent or eliminate the need for the child's removal from home; and (3) while in the home, the child cannot receive the quality of care and level of support and supervision needed to meet the conditions of probation. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(i) (Vernon 2006). Here, appellant challenges only the first finding; he asserts the record indicates that continuation of probation was the more appropriate disposition in his case.
The record reveals that appellant comes from a broken home; has suffered the loss of an older brother, who was murdered; and suffers from depression and has been hospitalized in Southwest Mental Health Center. On the other hand, appellant pled true to the offense of burglary of a habitation. At the time of the offense, appellant was on juvenile probation and he was on "runaway status," having left home because he was angry about not being allowed to go to school. According to appellant, he could not go to school because he has tuberculosis. His probation officer, however, testified that appellant was free to attend school and the department had offered to help him with enrollment.
Prior to the underlying offense, appellant had four prior adjudications: two for burglary of habitation offenses, one for possession of a controlled substance, and one for a prohibited weapon offense. Although appellant's counsel argued appellant did "well when structured by his mom and dad, and placement outside the home" was not appropriate, the record reveals that appellant has tested positive for marihuana and cocaine use while on probation; he left a drug-counseling program after only one month; and he has violated other conditions of his probation. Appellant's probation officer recommended commitment to TYC.
Considering the probation officer's recommendation, appellant's previous history of offenses and probation violations, and his continued drug use, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in committing appellant to TYC.
CONCLUSION
We overrule appellant's issue on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment.