Opinion
No. 04-06-00199-CV
Delivered and Filed: December 20, 2006.
Appeal from the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2005-JUV-02335, Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding.
AFFIRMED.
Sitting: SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant J.L.R. was charged with committing the felony offense of arson after a single family home that was under construction burned in the summer of 2005. During J.L.R.'s first trial, the jury deadlocked and the trial court declared a mistrial. On re-trial, J.L.R. entered a plea of true and acknowledged starting the fire in question. The trial court committed J.L.R. to TYC. On appeal, J.L.R. contends the trial court abused its discretion when it committed J.L.R. to TYC because the record indicates that probation would have been a more appropriate disposition. We disagree.
Factual Background
On August 28, 2005, at approximately 3:30 p.m., a house under construction in San Antonio was completely destroyed by fire. Arson investigator Timothy Bays interviewed J.G., a fourteen year old witness to the fire. J.G. explained that he and three other teenagers had been inside the house with fifteen year old appellant J.L.R., who was vandalizing the house by knocking boards loose and breaking windows and boards. J.G. stated that he witnessed J.L.R. use a lighter and ignite some paper manuals. Although the teenagers asked him to stop, J.L.R. refused and J.G. and the other teenagers left the residence. Shortly after they left, J.L.R. joined the departing teenagers. The house in question, surrounding homes, and a wooden privacy fence sustained damages from the resulting fire. The estimated damages were approximately $100,000.00.
On September 19, 2005, the State filed its Original Petition Alleging Delinquent Conduct alleging J.L.R. committed the arson in question on or about August 28, 2005. In January 2006, the case was called for trial and after a jury was unable to reach a decision, the trial court declared a mistrial. The case was recalled for trial on March 7, 2006 and J.L.R. waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of true. The trial court found J.L.R. engaged in delinquent conduct and disposition was necessary. During the disposition phase, the pre-disposition report (PDR) prepared by probation officer, Darren Echols was admitted into evidence without objection. The State recommended commitment to the Texas Youth Commission. Although J.L.R.'s defense counsel made no recommendation either way, counsel requested that in the event the trial court committed J.L.R. to the Texas Youth Commission, that the court request an expedited transfer and include a copy of the report prepared by County Psychiatrist Dr. John Sparks. The trial court committed J.L.R. to the Texas Youth Commission and J.L.R. now appeals.
Standard of Review
Because "[a] juvenile judge has broad discretion to determine the proper disposition of a child who has been adjudicated as engaging in delinquent behavior," its determination on this question will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re K.J.N., 103 S.W.3d 465, 465-66 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it "acts unreasonably or arbitrarily and without reference to guiding rules and principles." Id. at 466. We review a trial court's disposition order under the criminal abuse of discretion standard divorced from evidentiary standards of legal and factual sufficiency. In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d 65, 74 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (en banc). This standard requires that we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's judgment. Guzman v. State, 955 S .W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Thus, we will afford almost total deference to the trial court's findings of fact which are supported by the record. In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d at 74. On the other hand, when the trial court's resolution of a factual issue is not dependant upon an evaluation of credibility or demeanor, "we review the trial court's determination of the applicable law, as well as its application of the appropriate law to the facts it has found, de novo." Id. at 75.
Trial Court Proceedings
Texas Family Code § 54.04 sets forth the guiding rules and principles for juvenile commitment outside the child's home. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Section 54.04 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). J.L.R. contends the trial court abused its discretion when it committed him to TYC because the record indicates that probation would have been a more appropriate disposition.
A. Prior Incidents Involving J.L.R.
A.L. testified before the court that she witnessed J.L.R. use Axe body spray in an attempt to light his cousin's arm hair on fire and she saw him pour gasoline in the street and light the gasoline. A.L. also witnessed J.L.R. light three or four other fires in her presence. J.L.R. was previously adjudicated guilty of criminal mischief for another incident wherein he started a fire and was placed on probation for terroristic threats after threatening to kill his principal.
B. J.L.R. Home Supervision
According to the pre-disposition report, J.L.R.'s mother had a history of arrests for hot checks and possession of crack cocaine. While living with his mother, J.L.R. and his younger siblings were left alone and unsupervised on several occasions. On January 20, 2004, J.L.R. and his younger sister were placed in CPS custody. J.L.R.'s youngest sibling was removed from the residence prior to January of 2004 for neglectful supervision. Although J.L.R. was placed with other family members and in several foster homes, none of the placements were successful. In fact, the evidence supports a finding that CPS exhausted all possible placements for J.L.R.
C. The Pre-Disposition Report
On August 12, 2005, J.L.R. tested positive for, and admitted to using, marijuana. His grandmother reported that J.L.R. refused to follow her rules when he lived with her, was truant from school and smoked marijuana. His mother reported that he was "aggressive, destructive and very disrespectful" to her. While on probation for terroristic threats, the school filed numerous incident reports complaining of "disruptive, aggressive, sexually inappropriate and destructive behavior," extreme vulgarity and profanity. While in CPS custody, J.L.R.'s inappropriate behavior continued. After being caught with a lighter and making sexual threats to a younger male, J.L.R. was removed and placed in detention. After being released from detention, J.L.R. was placed in a new foster care home where he "smacked a nine year old girl on the mouth" and "willfully defied the rules." After his third adjudication, J.L.R. was placed in Shoreline Treatment Center where he remained until he made threats that he would harm himself. J.L.R. was then placed in the Padre Behavioral Center and then the Texas Adolescent Center, where he was a major participant in an escape attempt. J.L.R. was then moved to another foster home but ran away and was placed back in detention. The probation officer recommended J.L.R. be committed to TYC.
D. Dr. John Sparks Evaluation
Dr. John Sparks, the county psychiatrist, performed a mental evaluation on J.L.R. which found that J.L.R. had a long history of marijuana, alcohol, Xanax and Ecstacy use. The report also indicated that J.L.R. was bipolar and suffered from Attention Deficit and Hyper-activity Disorder. Although J.L.R. was not severely mentally ill, he appeared to lack the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, particularly with regard to starting the fire in question.
E. Trial Court Commitment Hearing
During the proceedings, the State recommended TYC commitment and defense counsel acknowledged in all probability the trial court would, in fact, sentence J.L.R. to TYC. Moreover, J.L.R. appeared to anticipate TYC as he informed the trial court that he just wanted to finish his time. The trial court found commitment to TYC was necessary for a litany of reasons:
1) the nature of the offense;
2) the amount of damage caused;
3) J.L.R.'s previous history with the juvenile system, including a criminal mischief charge resulting from a fire;
4) the previous services provided by probation department and Child Protective Services;
5) continued problems with Child Protective Services;
5) J.L.R. had been previously sent to a placement facility; and
6) a history of many behavioral problems.
Accordingly, the trial court found it was in the child's best interest to be placed outside the home, that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the child's removal from the home and to make it possible for the child to return home. Finally, the trial court found that the quality of care and level of support and supervision required by J.L.R. could not be met by placement in J.L.R.'s home.
Analysis
Under § 54.04(d)(2) of the Family Code, the trial court may commit a juvenile to TYC if the juvenile has perpetrated a felony. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(d)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006). At the adjudication hearing, J.L.R. entered a plea of true to the felony charge of arson of a building. Based upon stipulations and the introduction of the offense report, the court adjudicated J.LR. delinquent. Immediately thereafter, the trial court held the disposition hearing. The testimony supports a finding that J.L.R. possessed serious behavior problems, requiring numerous unsuccessful placements in alternative family homes, foster care and numerous State placement facilities. Additionally, the evidence revealed prior adjudications for a fire related criminal mischief, terroristic threats on his school principal, as well as J.L.R.'s inability to accept responsibility for his actions. J.L.R.'s probation officer believed commitment to TYC was the appropriate disposition because J.L.R.'s delinquency has continued to progress to a more serious level.
Although appellant's counsel argues that J.L.R.'s problems are better addressed through CPS resources, the trial court disagreed. The evidence demonstrates that it was in J.L.R's best interest to be placed outside the child's home. Although CPS made several attempts to intervene, even placing J.L.R. in mental health facilities, J.L.R.'s behavioral problems continued to be uncontrolled by his surroundings. The evidence further revealed that reasonable efforts were taken to prevent or eliminate the need for the child's removal from home and neither the child's home, nor the placements provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision needed to meet the conditions of probation.
Conclusion
In light of the evidence presented to the trial court and the standards as set forth in the Texas Family Code, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in committing J.L.R. to TYC.