Opinion
No. 05-04-00577-CV
Opinion Filed June 27, 2005.
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. JD-54961-W.
Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, BRIDGES, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
L.E. appeals the trial court's judgment of disposition committing him to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) for five years. In a single issue, L.E. argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him committed to TYC. We affirm the trial court's judgment of disposition.
Background
On December 18, 2002, L.E. was adjudicated a child engaged in delinquent conduct for committing the offense of evading arrest or detention. The trial court placed L.E. on probation for twelve months in his mother's custody. On December 8, 2003, L.E. entered a plea of true to committing two new offenses: unlawful carrying of an illegal knife and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 22.02(a), 46.02(a) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2004-05). The trial court adjudicated L.E. a child engaged in delinquent conduct, then, after receiving evidence in the disposition hearing, committed L.E. to TYC for five years.
Standard of Review
A juvenile court has broad discretion in determining a suitable disposition for a juvenile who has been adjudged to have engaged in delinquent conduct. In re K.B., 106 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Under an abuse of discretion review, we reverse the trial court only if the trial court has acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner. J.R.W. v. State, 879 S.W.2d 254, 257 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no writ.).
Evidence Presented in Disposition Hearing
Irving police officer Jeremy Hummert testified that on September 5, 2003, the dispatcher received several calls about people fighting at a country club. When Hummert arrived at the scene, most of the suspects fled. Hummert questioned L.E., who admitted that he had been involved in the fight. L.E. initially said there was no weapon, then told Hummert the weapon was under his car. Hummert looked under L.E.'s car and found a large knife. L.E. said the knife was his. Hummert testified he later found out that the fight had been pre-planned and that L.E. had gone to watch the fight, but L.E. was not one of the original parties involved. During the fight, two men hit L.E. in the back of the head. L.E. opened the trunk of his car and pulled out the knife.
Nathaniel Gulley testified that on October 25, 2003, a car was blocking the drive-through lane of a fast-food restaurant. There were three men inside the car, and all four doors were standing open. After waiting five or ten minutes, Gulley honked his horn several times, then "squeezed" his vehicle around the car and entered the order lane. One of the three men jumped on Gulley's car and kicked out the windshield. While Gulley was standing outside his car, the men surrounded him and hit Gulley with their fists. One of the men stabbed Gulley in the chest, stomach, and eye area with an object. Gulley identified L.E. as one of the men. Gulley testified he did not know if L.E. was the individual who stabbed him because he was fighting all three men simultaneously. After he was stabbed several times, Gulley jumped into his car and sped away. The men got in their vehicle and chased Gulley. At one point, Gulley slowed down. The three men jumped out of their car with "pipes and wrenches" and began beating on Gulley's car. Gulley sped away again, running through several red lights. The men chased Gully for thirty minutes before a police officer stopped the men. Gulley turned around and stopped behind the patrol car. An officer called an ambulance for Gulley. Gulley testified he received over fifty stitches and was hospitalized for several days.
Shannon Salazar, L.E.'s probation officer, testified that L.E. had been meeting all of the terms and conditions of his probation prior to committing the new offenses. L.E. only had three more months of probation at the time he committed the new offenses. Salazar testified the probation department recommended that L.E. be committed to TYC.
L.E.'s mother and father testified on L.E.'s behalf. Both parents testified that L.E. was greatly affected by their divorce when L.E. was seven years old. L.E.'s mother testified that L.E. was working hard to manage his temper, and L.E. was not involved in any gangs. L.E.'s father testified that he knew L.E. was on probation when he got into trouble again, and that the aggravated assault occurred at 1:30 a.m., which was past L.E.'s curfew.
L.E. asked the trial court to place him on probation. L.E. testified that he had complied with the terms of his probation, he did not use drugs, and he had gone to school every day and had received a scholarship to attend college. L.E. testified that Kevin Alvarez was the person who had stabbed Gulley, and that L.E. did not know Alvarez had a weapon at that time.
Discussion
L.E. argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him committed to TYC because he had complied with all of the terms and conditions of his probation. L.E. contends that he took a knife out of the trunk of his car only because two men had hit him in the back of the head while he observed others fighting at a pre-arranged fight. L.E. acknowledges that he was a party to the aggravated assault, but argues he neither knew his accomplice had a weapon nor was he the person who used the weapon. L.E. argues that because he had obtained a diploma and a college scholarship, did not use drugs or affiliate with gangs, and was constructively dealing with his anger, the trial court abused its discretion in committing him to TYC rather than placing him on probation.
The State responds that the trial court properly ordered L.E. committed to TYC based upon L.E.'s performance while on probation, L.E.'s need for more supervision, and the two new offenses. We agree with the State.
The trial court found that L.E. violated his probation by committing two new offenses. The trial court also found that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for L.E.'s removal from the home, that L.E.'s home could not provide the level of supervision that L.E. needed to meet the conditions of probation, and that it was in L.E.'s and the public's best interest to place L.E. outside the home. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(I) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). If a child's delinquent conduct includes a violation of a penal law such as aggravated assault, and if approved by the grand jury, the trial court may sentence the child to commitment in TYC. Id. §§ 53.045(a)(6), 54.04(d)(3) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2004-05). Here, the record includes a certificate of approval by the grand jury. After receiving evidence, the trial court could properly commit L.E. to TYC for five years pursuant to the determinative sentencing laws. Id. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in committing L.E. to five years in TYC. See In re K.B., 106 S.W.3d at 915. Accordingly, we overrule L.E.'s sole issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court's judgment of disposition with TYC commitment.