Opinion
No. 04-07-00105-CV
Delivered and Filed: February 6, 2008.
Appealed from the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2006-JUV-03264, Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding.
Affirmed.
Sitting: ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice, STEVEN C. HILBIG, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J.A.A., a juvenile, appeals the trial court's order committing him to an indeterminate sentence in the Texas Youth Commission ("TYC"). In one issue J.A.A. argues the record does not support the trial court's stated reasons for the disposition. We disagree and affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
The State filed a petition alleging delinquent conduct against J.A.A. after a high school teacher saw J.A.A. handing another student a pair of brass knuckles in class. After a trial to the bench, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that J.A.A. engaged in delinquent conduct by possessing a prohibited weapon on the premises of a school. At the disposition hearing, the State recommended commitment to TYC. The trial court admitted copies of the judgments in J.A.A.'s five previous adjudications and a supplemental predisposition report prepared by J.A.A.'s probation officer. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007) (authorizing trial court to consider written reports of probation officers). The trial court reviewed the evidence, obtained clarification on several matters from the probation officer, and heard the arguments of counsel. The court then found J.A.A. is in need of rehabilitation and ordered J.A.A. committed to TYC. The disposition order stated that commitment to TYC is the appropriate disposition because J.A.A. "is in need of a structured and therapeutic correctional environment in order to be rehabilitated." See id. § 54.04(f) (stating trial court must state specifically its reasons for disposition). J.A.A. timely appealed, and argues the trial court abused its discretion in committing him to TYC because the record does not support the stated reason for the disposition.
Standard of Review
A trial court has broad discretion in determining the suitable disposition for a juvenile who has engaged in delinquent conduct. In re K.J.N., 103 S.W.3d 465, 465-66 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). When, as in this case, the adjudication is for conduct that is a felony
Possession of brass knuckles on school property is a third degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.03(a)(1), (g) (Vernon Supp. 2007); id. § 46.05(a)(6).
, the trial court may, in its discretion, commit the juvenile to TYC. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(d)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2007). We review the trial court's findings in support of its disposition for abuse of discretion. In re E.D., 127 S.W.3d 860, 864 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, no pet.); In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d 65, 74-75 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) In conducting our review, we "`view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling,' affording almost total deference to findings of historical fact that are supported by the record." In re K.T., 107 S.W.3d at 75 (quoting Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997)).
J.A.A.'s Referral History
J.A.A. was adjudicated for the current offense two days before his sixteenth birthday. The evidence before the trial court showed that in the four-and-one-half years before the trial, J.A.A. had fourteen juvenile referrals and five adjudications, three for possession of marijuana and two for violating the terms of his probation. The Bexar County Juvenile Probation Department had been actively involved in trying to rehabilitate J.A.A. since his first referral for graffiti in September 2002, when he was eleven years old. At that time, J.A.A. was placed on specialized early intervention divergence, a type of deferred prosecution, and sent to counseling with Youth Alternatives. Nevertheless, J.A.A. continued having behavioral problems in school and was charged with possession of marijuana when he was twelve. J.A.A. stipulated to the charge and in September 2003, he was placed on probation for nine months. Eight days after being placed on probation, J.A.A. was involved in a gang-related fight at his middle school. That incident and other alleged gang activity resulted in a motion to modify his probation.
When J.A.A. received his second referral for possession of marijuana, the trial court adjudicated it together with the alleged violations of his probation. In November 2003, the court placed J.A.A. on probation for one year, including thirty days of electronic monitoring. However, within three months, J.A.A. had received three referrals for violating his probation, including disorderly conduct and testing positive for marijuana and opiates.
In March 2004, J.A.A. stipulated to the three charges of violating his probation and was placed on probation for fifteen months, the first six months to be supervised by a specialized intensive supervision substance abuse program. He was also referred to the Patrician Movement. Nevertheless, J.A.A. continued to engage in gang-related activities and in June 2004, he tested positive for marijuana. He was referred to Milagritos for substance abuse counseling, but did not participate and the referral was unsuccessful. After testing positive for drugs two more times, J.A.A. was charged again with violating his probation.
J.A.A. stipulated to two violations of his probation. The trial court found that reasonable efforts to keep J.A.A. at home had been tried unsuccessfully, and the court placed him on probation in the custody of the Chief Bexar County Juvenile Probation Officer for a period of two years. In October 2004, J.A.A., who was then thirteen, was placed at Brookenhaven Youth Ranch, a non-secure facility. He was discharged successfully from Brookenhaven in March 2005 and put in the Aftercare and intensive supervision gang program. Although J.A.A. did well initially, his mother began to complain he was not following her rules. In July 2005, he broke a window, was cut in a gang altercation, and received his third referral for possession of marijuana.
J.A.A. was adjudicated on his third possession of marijuana charge in August 2005, when he was fourteen years old. This time, the trial court determined J.A.A. should be placed in a secured facility. The court put J.A.A. on probation until his sixteenth birthday in the custody of the Chief Bexar County Juvenile Probation Officer and J.A.A. was sent to the Cyndi Taylor Krier Correctional Treatment Center. There J.A.A. participated in individual, group, and family counseling and in a Ropes Challenge program. He received psychiatric services and performed all his community service hours. J.A.A. reportedly did very well at the Center and was discharged successfully in July 2006. J.A.A. was screened and approved to participate in Project STAY, which offers in-home intensive substance abuse counseling together with individual and family counseling, and was approved for the Back On Track program, which is a male mentoring program designed to reduce the chance of reoffending and offers employment assistance. He was placed on intensive Aftercare and given a 6:00 p.m. curfew. J.A.A. enrolled as a freshman at Jefferson High School and did well for about a month. The school then reported behavioral problems related to his gang affiliation and in October 2006, J.A.A. received a citation for leaving campus during lunch. He moved to Fox Tech High School, where he had attended for about two weeks when he was found in possession of the brass knuckles.
The probation officer's case staffing notes indicate that J.A.A.'s father is deceased. His mother works two jobs and "always claims to be `busy' with work." The notes state that she tends to neglect J.A.A.'s needs and prefers not to know what is going on. Although J.A.A. has been prescribed Ritalin for conduct disorder and ADHD, his mother does not have insurance and cannot afford medication.
J.A.A.'s probation officer's supplemental report states that J.A.A. has received all the different levels of supervision available. She states that J.A.A. has usually reported to Aftercare as instructed and appears motivated to complete the program; however, his choices at school and at home "continue to be detrimental to his rehabilitation." She concludes that the attempts to provide services to J.A.A. and his family "have been futile for the most part, and that the probation department has exhausted all available resources to assist [J.A.A.] and his family."
Analysis and Conclusion
After considering the evidence, the trial court advised J.A.A. of her decision to commit him to TYC. The court explained the disposition was because:
the probation department . . . [has] exhausted every type of program they have. We have nothing left. We have tried placement two times. . . . The long extensive referral history with the probation department that dates back to the year 2002. . . . The numerous services that have been provided by the probation department, including deferred prosecution at the tender age of 11, all the way to nonsecure placement and secured placement, intensive supervision, Project Stay, and other programs for substance abuse and individual counseling to assist you in being rehabilitated and making good decisions. I believe probation has tried everything. Any programs they have we have tried them already.
The trial court's stated reasons, as well as the statement in the disposition order that J.A.A. "is in need of a structured and therapeutic correctional environment" are amply supported by the record. J.A.A. has not successfully completed any of his previous probations. While he has shown some measure of success during his probationary placements in non-secure and secured facilities, J.A.A. reoffended within months of being discharged to his home notwithstanding intensive support from the juvenile probation department. The trial court acted within its discretion in finding that less restrictive alternatives were not successful in rehabilitating J.A.A. and that a more "structured and therapeutic correctional environment" was needed.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.