### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 06 -C V

______________________________

I N TH E M ATT ER

OF J .T .B.

On Appea l from the 2nd Judi cial District Court

Cherokee County , Texas Trial Court No. J-03-088

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte rThis case was tra nsfer red to this Court f

rom the Twelfth District Court of Appea ls in Ty ler 1 as a pa rt of the Te x as Supreme Court' s docket e qu al i z at i on prog ram. We ar e not awa re of any conflict be tween the prec edent of the Ty ler Court with prec edent of this Court on any

issue rele vant to this appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 41.3. Th e c on fi ne me nt wa s to be se rv e d wi th t he Te xas Y ou th C omm iss ion (T YC ) w ithpo ssi ble 2 transfe r to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Institut ional Division (TDCJ ). See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 30.02(c) (2) ( Ver non 2003). 3 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Aft er a t rou bl ed, f

i v e - y ear h is to ry

ent angle d wi th in th e ju ven il e ju st ice sy st em, J .T .B.

a pp e a ls a mod if

ic a tio n an d disp os iti on or de r re vo kin g pr ob a tio n an d sen te nc ing him to t e n y e ars ' 1

c on fi ne me nt. J.T. B . c on te nd s: ( 1) his c ouns e l wa s ine ff e c tiv e and

(2 ) t he juv e nil e c ourt

fa ile d to 2 make spe cific f

indings re quired by

Section 54.05(i) of the Texas Family Code. We aff

irm the trial court' s judgme nt. I. F actual and Proc edural History I n order to f

ully understand the nature of this c ase, and the extent to which the juvenile court attempted to re habilitate this juvenile, we brie fly provide J.T.B.' s disquieting history

. A. St r ike One : In- Hom e P r oba ti on t o R e side nt ialP lac e m e nt After previously

rec eiving defe rre d adjudication for stealing bicy cles fr o m W al -Mart, and completing probation for

attempted thef

t of a Powerline BB pistol, twelve -y ear -old J .T.B. pled true to violating Section 30.02(c )(2) of the Te x as Penal Code afte r he enter ed a ha bitation on August 31, 3 2003, and stole an X -B ox video g ame a nd cell phone. O n Fe bruar y 12, 2004, J .T.B. w as plac ed on3

probation in the custody

of his mother for

three y ear s. The rule s of all of his probations required that he commit "no of

fense ag ainst the laws of this or a ny other state," "[r]emain in the home . . . fr om 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. s even day s a week, unless . . . g iven per mission," and " [p] erf

orm 160 hours of communit y s er v i ce ." T he rule s further provided that J.T.B. was to attend school as sche duled without causing problems and obe y the rules a

nd regulations of the school. Although J.T.B. a ffixed his signature to the rules averringthat he under stood them, the very

ne xt day , h is t e a c he r a dv ise d the pr ob a tio n de pa rtme nt that J .T .B . "[w a s] ac tin g lik e a fo ol i n s c ho ol" and thre w papers after the teac her asked him about hi s prog ress on a n assig nment. When J .T.B. w as informed the sc hool was g oing to call the probation depa rtment, he said that he "[didn' t] g ive a f ***." Th e pro bat io n off

ice r fi led an app li cat io n for di rect iv e to app rehe nd and was di rect ed to tak e J .T .B. into custody

and deta in him in t he Ande rson County J uvenile De tention Center for no more than ten

wo rk ingda

y s. Th is w a s th e fir st o f m any de te nti on or de rs e nte re d thro ug ho ut t he ne xt fe w y e ars . I n Marc h 2 0 0 4 , t h e fi rst petition to modi fy dispositi on was filed, c iting the F ebrua ry 13 incident and two other incidents which involved J .T.B. hitting another boy "in the fac e with a c losed fist" a nd "a ssaulting . . . a

public serva

nt of t he J acksonville Tex as P ublic School sy stem; hitt ing he r in th e lef t sho ul der and arm wi th a clo sed fi st ." After a h eari ng, t he j uv eni le c ou rtord eredth at J .T .B. be place d on probation at Azleway Boy s' Ranch in Ty ler, Te x as. In addition to the rules of probation alre ady rec ited in the first order , the court re quired J.T.B. to obey the instructions and rules of the residential plac ement prog ram a nd prohibited J .T.B. f

rom participating in g angactivity

.4

B. Strike Tw o: Another R esidential Plac em ent On Octobe r 4, 2004, the Azlewa y Boy s' Ranch prog ram dire ctor c ontacted the probation depar tment and advised that J .T.B. was being discharg ed due to pending sexual assault charg es. The ch ar ges we re l at er

dro p p ed , an d

J

. T

. B. wa s al l o we d

t o re tu rn h o m e a n d

en ro l l i nR

u s k J u n i o r H i gh School. Howeve r, J .T.B. " g ot kicked out of re g ular school," was plac ed in an a lternative e ducation prog ram, a

nd was suspended from that prog ram three times. He also took his gr andmother' s car for a joy ride a nd evade d arr est afte r a pe ace office r attempted to stop hi m. An evaluation completed by Trinity Counseling Assoc iates of Ea st Texas reve aled that J.T.B. admitted that he w as a me mber of the Northside B loods ga

ng in J acksonville a

nd that the joy

ride was "a

n eff ort to show off for g ang
mem bers at t he A lt erna ti ve E du cat io n P rogram ." Citi ng these a lleg ed off

enses, subseque nt petitions t o modify dispositi on resulted in fur ther order s of detention, and on Aug ust 4, 2005, a modi fication order was e ntere d placingJ .T.B. in the Southwest Key

Prog ram re sidential place ment fac ility . I n addition to t h e s am e rules of probation imp le me nte d pre vio us ly , J .T .B . wa s to obe y the ru le s o f t he Southw e st K e y

Pr ogra m, p art ic ipate in elec tronic monitoring, a

nd attend and c omplete all juvenile ser vice pr og rams. C. Strike Three: Ind efin ite Juvenile Com m itm ent to TYC The next petition to modify dispositi on, filed in January 2007, alleg ed that J.T.B.: (1) wa s suspended f

rom school for e ight da

y s from Oc tober t o De ce m b er 2006; 2) failed to mee t curfe w; 3) ha d tw ic e e nte re d the pr op e rt y of Gr e g Ray

wi tho ut c on se nt; 4) fr a

ud ule ntl y a tte mpt e d to po sse ssThe re port indicated that community service assig ned in 2004 was c ompleted in J uly 2006. 4 See T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 30.05 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). 5 See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.129 (Ve rnon 2003). 6 The juvenile court further place d J .T.B. in the Ander son County J uvenile Detention Center 7 pe nd ingtr ans po rt a tio n to TY C. 5 or obtain hy drocodone by adding the words " Hy drocode n 6 0 0 mg" to a pre scription form that had alre ady been filled out by his doctor; and 5) with the specific intent to commit t he off ense of sexual

a ssa ult , p la c e d a

g ir l: over his shoulders, c arr ied her to the bedro o m , place d her on a bed, re moved her pants and unde rwe ar, lowered his shorts and took a position over [her], which amounted to more tha

n mere prepa

ration that tende d but failed to effec t the commission of the offe nse intended. A summar

y f il e d b y th e Ch e r okee County

J uvenile De partment listed eig ht violations of court order s from F ebrua

ry 2004 to Marc h 2007, unsucce ssful discharg es from the Azleway Boy s' Ranch

and Pr oje c t A sp e c t Pr og ra

m, a nd un su c cess ful c omp le tio n o f i nte ns ive pr ob a tio n a nd e le c tr on ic

mon ito ri ng . Sin c e J.T. B . h a d b e e n r e fe rr e d to the pr ob a tio n dep art ment, h e ha d b e e n " pla c e d in

4 detention nine diffe rent times totaling 231 da y s," a nd had bee n arr ested six t imes. On April 26, 2007, the juvenile court cited J .T.B.' s history and proc edura l backg round, found that he ente red Ray ' s proper ty in violation of Se ct i o n 3 0.05 of the Te x as Penal Code, violated 5 Se c tio n 4 81 .1 29 of

the Te xas H e a lthand S afety Cod e by

atte mpt ingto f

ra ud ule ntl y ob ta in 6 hydr oc od on e , w a s su sp e nd e d f ro m sc ho ol, vio late d c ur fe w, and or de re d h im c omm it ted to T YC

. 76

D. Strike Out: Com m itm ent to TYC/TDCJ On May 5, 2008, a petition f

or deter minate sentenc ing alleg ed J .T.B. ha d shot another pe rson with a fire arm on Apr il 21, prior to the juvenile cour t's or der committing J .T.B. to TY C. After waiver of a jury trial and right t o appea l on the issue, the juvenile c ourt found J.T.B. had c ommitt ed the of fe ns e and se nte nc e d J.T .B . to ten (10) y ear s confine ment with the first portion of the confine ment being in t he Texas Youth Comm ission and the rema ining c onfinement to be se rved in the Te x as De pa rtme nt o f Cr imi na l Justi c e , I ns tit uti on a l Di vis ion ; ho we ve r, thi s c on fi ne me nt i s suspended a

nd [J .T.B.] shall be plac ed on proba tion and co m m i tted to the supervision of the J uvenile P robation Office of Cherokee County , Texas for ten ( 10) y e ars , a nd the sa id s up e rv isi on

wi ll b e tr ans fe rr e d to Che ro ke e County Ad ult Pr ob a tio n f

or the re ma ind e r o f t

he te n y e ar p e ri od

up on a pp ro va l. A final petition to modify dispositi on resulted in the court re voking pr obation and instituti ng the sentenc e imposed above. The juvenile court found J .T.B. violate d the conditions of his probation beca use he w as issued a c itation for minor in possession of a tobac co produc t, violated curf ew on June 28 , 2 9, and

July 5, 20 08 , te ste d p os iti ve fo r m ari hu ana and be nzo dia pin e in a ra nd om u ri na ly sis , and wa s unsucce ssfully

discharg ed fr om Summer I I Prog ram. I n its order , the court did not find that J .T.B. f ailed to per form community service hours or that he stole money from Mike' s Muffler

Shop as alleg ed in the modification for disposition. Ne ve rt he le ss, J.T. B . c on te nd s " the re su lt o f the mod if ic a tio n h e ari ngwa s unr e lia ble be c a us e [he] rec eived inef

fec tive assistance of counsel," when counsel failed to object to hear say evidenc e
re la te d o nly

to t he the ft a lle g a tio n a t Mik e ' s Mu ff le r S ho p. Th e se c on d is su e on a pp e a l de a ls w ithThese statutory finding s are included within the appe aled or der. 8 7 langua g e in S e c tio n 5 4. 05 (i ) o f the Te xas F a mil y Cod e , re qu ir ingthe c ourt to " sp e c if

ic a lly state its

rea sons for modifying the dispositi on." We a ffirm. II. Stand ard of Review The j u v e n il e c o u rt h a s b r o a d d is c r e ti o n to s e le c t th e a p p r o p r iate f

o r m o f d e te n tion for juv e nil e of

fe nd e rs . T o c omm it the juv e nil e to TY C, the c ourt mus t make fi nd ing s th a t: ( 1) it i s in the child's best interest to be pla ced outside the home; (2) r easona ble ef forts we re taken to pre vent the ne e d to re mov e the c hil d fr om the ho me and make it po ssi ble to re tur n ho me ; and (3 ) the c hil d did not rece ive the quality of ca re and level of support and super vision needed to mee t the conditions of probation. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . §§ 54 .0 4( i) , 54 .0 5( m) (V e rn on 20 08 ); In re J

.R .C. , 236 S.W .3d 8 87 0, 87 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 07 , n o p e t.) ; se e als o In re J .P. , 1 3 6 S. W. 3 d

6 2 9 , 6 3 0 ( T e x. 2004). Thus, we do not disturb a juvenil e co u rt 's d ispositi on order in the absenc e of a

n abuse of discretion. In re K.H. , 1 69 S.W. 3d 45 9, 46 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —T e xar ka na 20 05 , n o p e t.) ; In re K.J

.N. , 10 3 S. W.3 d 465 , 465 –6 6 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n Ant on io 2 00 3, no pe t.) ; In re A.E.E

. , 89 S.W .3d 250, 256 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2002, no pet.). An abuse of d i s cretion occurs w hen a tr ial court a cts arbitra rily , unrea sonably , or without ref ere nce to guiding r

ules and principles. In re M .A. , 198 S.W .3d 388, 391 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.). This sta

ndard require s that we "vie w the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the trial court' s ruling," aff

ording almost total defe renc e to finding s of hi storical facts t hat ar e supported8

by the re cord. In re J

.G. , 195 S.W .3d 161, 187 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o 2006, no pet.). When the resolutio no f

f a c tu a l i s s u e s d o e s n o t t

u r no nane v a lu a ti o no f

c r e d ib il it y o r d e me an o r , w e r e view de no vo the tr ia l court ' s det e rm inatio n of the a pp lic a ble law, a s we ll a s it s a

pp lic a tio n to the fa c ts. Id. A trial co u rt d o es not abuse its discretion if some e vidence supports its decision. F u r r 's S u p ermarke ts, Inc. v. B ethune , 5 3 S. W.3 d 3 75 , 3 79 (T e x. 20 01 ); se e als o E s tr e llo v . Elboar , 965 S.W. 2d 75 4, 75 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1 99 8, no pe t.) ; Holley v . Holley , 864 S.W .2d 703, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1993, writ denied)

. III . Ana lys is A. Ine ffec ti ve As sis ta nc e Al le ga ti on J .T.B. f irst contends his counsel wa s ineffe ctive bec ause he fa i l ed to obj ect to hea rsay evidenc e. J.T.B. bea

rs the burde n of proof

on this matter by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Tho mp so n v . S

tate , 9 S.W. 3d 80 8, 81 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ); se e Go od sp e e d v . S tate , 187 S.W .3d 39 0, 39 2 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 20 05 ). Any a lle g a tio n o f h is c ouns e l' s in e ff e c tiv e ne ss m

us t be fi rm ly f o u n d e d in the rec ord. Goodspee d , 1 87 S.W. 3d a t 39 2; Thompson , 9 S.W. 3d a t 81 3; Cannon v. Sta te , 668 S.W .2d 401, 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We apply the two-prong ed Strickland test handed down by the United States Supreme Court to de termine whether J .T.B. rec eived ineffe ctive assistance of counse l. Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 ( 1984). The first prongrequire s J .T.B. to show c ounsel' s perf ormanc e fe ll below an objective standa

rd of r easona

bleness whe n c o n s id e r in g

p r e v a il ing pr ofessional norms. Id. at 687–88.9

To meet the se cond prongof the Strickland test, J .T.B. must show that t h e d eficient perf ormanc e damag ed his defe nse such that ther e is a rea sonable probability the result of the trial would have be en differ ent. Id. ; Ton g v . S

tate , 25 S.W .3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim App. 2000). Fa ilure to satisfy either prongof the Strickland

test is fatal. J

au be rt v . S

tate , 7 4 S. W.3 d 1 , 9 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02 ). Thus , we ne ed not examine both Strickland prong s if one ca nnot be met. Strickland , 466 U.S. at 697. J .T.B. c omplains that trial counsel did not object to t he testimony of Off icer Anthony For son
c on c e rn ingthe Oc tob e r 8 , 2 00 8, inc ide nt a t th e muf fl e r s ho p w he n F or so n te sti fi ed Offi cer E ri c Da we s to ld h im that he tho ug ht J.T .B . w a s in po sse ssi on

of tob a c c o p ro du c ts. I t is no t c le ar t hat th is

e vid e nc e is h e ars ay . Apo lic e of fi c e r' s te sti mony

is n ot h e ars ay

wh e n it is o ff e red f or the purp os e of explaining how a

defe ndant bec ame a

sus p ect, r ather

than for the truth of the matter asser ted. Di nk ins v . S tate , 894 S.W .2d 330, 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). I n addition, an off icer ' s testimony is not hearsa

y when it is admitted, not for the truth, but to establish the co u rse of events and circ umstances lea ding to a defe ndant 's ar rest. Tho rn ton v . S tate , 9 9 4 S. W. 2 d

8 4 5 , 8 5 4 ( T e x. Ap p . — Fo rt W o rt h 1 9 9 9 , p et
. re f'd ) ( ci t i n g Re e d v . S tate , 794 S.W .2d 806, 809 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h D ist .] 19 90 , p e t. r e f' d) ). Ad dit ion a lly , s inc e J.T. B . a dmi tte d pos se ssi on of tob a c c o on th a t date it a pp e ars the de fe ns e ma de a str a te g ic de c isi on no t to c on te st this iss ue . Co un se l' s p e rf or manc e in this reg ard w as not defic ient. J.T. B . a lle g e s h is c ouns e l f a ile d to pr e se nt e vid e nc e that a GPS de vic e pla c e d h im at so me other location at the time of the incident at Mike' s Muffler Shop, but the recor d shows such evide nceThe bulk of J.T.B.' s argument on this iss ue complains the order "is unclear spec ifically what 9 cause d the trial judg e to enter the orde r modifying [J .T.B.' s] probation." We disag ree . I n a dd iti on

to t he or ig ina l fe lony c ha

rg e fo r e nte ri ng the ho me of Wal te r L e e Sto c ks til l w ith 10 intent to commit theft, the order complained of states there "w as also a finding of a D eadly Weapon on the 9th day

of June, 2008 when the Respondent e ntere d his plea o f T rue to the a lleg ations of Aggravat ed A ss aul t w it h a D eadl y W eapo n. " 10 wa s p re se nte d b y

J.T. B . in his te sti mony . J .T .B . a lso a lle g e s th a t c ouns e l w a s d e fi c ie nt i n f a ili ngto object to a s tate me n t b y

J. T

. B

. ' s g ir lf

r ie n d a t t h e mu f f le r s h o p . H o w e v e r , n o th in g in th e r e cord sug g ests J .T.B.' s sentence was due to a theft alleg edly occur ring at Mike' s Muffler

Shop. I n fac t, the juvenile cour

t did not base its decision t o revoke probation based on this alleg ation. There fore , as to the incident occurring at t he muffler shop, J .T.B. c annot meet the se cond prongof the Strickland te st. I n vie w of thi s juv e nil e ' s e xten siv e de lin qu e nc y his tor y , the re is no ind ic a tio n o f a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity the juv e nil e c ourt wo uld have imp os e d a dif fe re nt s e nte nc e ha d c ouns e l ob je c te d to thi s alleg ed hea

rsay evidenc e. F rom the re cord, it appe ars the tr ial court had alre ady exhausted the lesser

a lte rn a tiv e sanc tio ns. Th e tr ia l c ourt a ptl y ob se rv e d th a t J.T. B . h a d " wo rn the sy ste m out." Th is point of err or is overr

uled. B. Specif

ic Reasons for Sentence J.T. B . n e xt co mpl a ins that th e c ourt ' s re a so ns fo r co mmi tti ng him to T YC are no t su ff ic ie ntl y specific

. A modification order can provide for commitment to TYC if "(1) the orig inal dispositi on 9

wa s f or c on du c t co ns ti tu ti ng a

fe lony or mul tip le mis de me ano rs , a nd (2 ) t he c ourt fi nd s th e c hil d violated a r easona

ble and law ful order

of the c ourt." J.P. , 1 36 S.W. 3d a t 63 0– 31 ; see T EX . F AM .

1011

C ODE ANN . § 54 .0 5( f) (V e rn on 20 08). Th e juv e nil e c ourt " sh a ll s pe c if

ic a lly state in t he or de r i ts

re a so ns fo r mod if

y ing the dis po sit ion ." T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 54.05(i) (V ernon 2008) . The statutory rec itals listed in Sec tion 54.05( m) are not, by themselves, spec ific enoug h to meet Section 54.05(i) re quirements. In re J .T.H. , 77 9 S.W. 2d 95 4, 95 9 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 89 , no wri t) (d isc us sin g Se c tio n 54. 04 ). As lon g a s th e re c or d s up po rt s th e sp e c if ic fi nd ing s ma de by

the c ourt , its findings will not be disturbed. In re S.A.G. , N o . 0 4

- 0 6

- 0 0 5 0 3

- CV , 2 0 0 7 WL 7 4 8 6 7 4 , a t * 2 ( T e x. Ap p . — S an An t o n i o M ar . 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t
. ) ( m e m . o p . ) ( ci t i n g In re E.D

. , 127 S.W .3d 860, 864 ( T e x. A p p . —

A u s t i n 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t
. ) )

. T h e v i o l a t i o n o f o n e c o n d i t i o n o f p r o b a t i o n i s s u f f i c i e nt t o support a trial c ourt' s order modify ing a

juvenile' s disposit ion. Id. at *3. I n a dd iti on to the statut or

y langua g e and " fi nd [ing s] that wi thi n the pe ri od of pr ob a tio n s a id child has violated the c onditions," the orde r also stated J .T.B. w as " in need of reha bilitation," and mod if ic a tio n w a s r e qu ir e d " fo r the p ro te c tio n o f t he pu bli c and the c hil d. " Th e or de r a lso incorpora ted " Ex hibit 1," which state d:

C Th e c hil d h a s a

his tor y of re fe rr a ls f

or vio latio ns a t sc ho ol.

C The De partment ha s attempted disposition i n the home in the past, a nd the child continues to c omm it o ff

e ns e s. C I t does not appea

r that disposition i n t he home will have any succe ss in rehabilitating the child.

C The supervision of the pare nts in the home is not sufficient to preve nt the child from his/her a dmi tte d g anginv olv e me nt a nd re pe a te d o ff

e ns e s. C Th e c hil d w a s p re vio us ly pla c e d o n p ro batio n b y

the Court
. C Th e chi ld and

/or fa mil y wa s p re vio us ly

re fe rr e d to the fo llo wi ngc omm un ity , c ourt , edu ca t i o n al , co u n s el i n g, o r p s y ch o l o gi ca l p ro gra m s : S u m m er I I P ro gra m , GP S M o n i t o ri n g, In t e n s i v e S u

p e r v i s i o nP r o g r a m , C o m m u n i t y S e r v i c e R e s t i tu t i o n , P r o

j e c tA s p e c t , W h y T r

y, El e c tr on ic Mo nit or ing , Pr e ve nt D ay , So uthwe st Ke y RTC and Azl e wa y B oy s' Ranc h RT C.12

C The nature of the offe nse and/or circ umstances in the child's home nec essitates re moval of the child from the home

. We find the order

more than suf

ficient to mee t the require ments of Section 54.05(i). Thus, if some evidence s u p ports these finding s, they cannot be disturbed on appe al. The sufficie ncy

of the evidenc e to suppor t the se finding s is not challeng ed in this appea l. I n both its oral pronounce ment and wr itten or der, the juvenile court found that J .T.B. posse ssed tobacc o as a minor, violated cur few , tested positive f or marihuana

and benzodiapine, a

nd was unsucc essfully

discharg ed from the Sum mer I I Prog ram. J acksonville Ci ty J udg e Pete Me nefe e broug ht J .T.B.' s court file a nd testified he h a d

a p e n d in g ti c k e t f

o r mi n o r in p o s s e s s io no f

to b a c c o in

h is c o u rt. T h e c u r f

ew violation was supported by Kyle De z er n , empl oy ee of the Cheroke e County

J uvenile Probation Depa rtment, who testified that J.T.B.' s GPS m onitor confirme d violations on the alleg ed dates. Te rri Arnold, prog ram c oordinator f or the summer pr og ram, testified that he only attended for one day and had to be r emoved fro m t h e prog ram due to inappropriate behavior . J .T.B. a lso admitted he possessed the tobac co, violated c urfe w, tested posit ive for benzodiapine, " might have been dir ty " f or marihuana , and wa s discharg ed fr om the summer progra m. Additionally , the t rial court took judicial notice of the entire c lerk' s rec ord, which further supports the additional finding s made in E x hibit 1. We find no abuse of

discretion in the trial c ourt' s judgme nt.13

IV . CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: May 26, 2009 Date D ecide d: May 27, 2009