### NUM BER 13-06- 0028 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I -E D I N B U R G
IN THE M A

TTER OF J.A .S ., II I, A

JUVENILE
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 06t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, J.A .S. III , a juv eni le, pl eaded g uil ty to the o ffenses of poss ess io n of mari huana, a thi rd -d e g re e felony , and pos ses si on of mar ihu ana i n a d ru g -free z one, a cl ass A mi sdemeano r. SeeT EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481. 121( a) , ( b) (4 ) (V er non 2003) ; § 481.134 (f) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. On O cto ber 13, 2005, the t ri al cour t pl a ced app ellanton prob ation w ith ou tside p lace m e n t at the Gulf Coast T rade s Cente r ( “Gulf Coa st” ). On D ecember

5, 2005, the S tate filed a pe ti ti on to modi fy the tr ial co urt’ s O cto ber 13, 2 005 di spos it ion

. In t his moti on, t he St ate a ll eg ed th at ap pel la n t “vio lat ed C ondi ti on2

No. 22 o f his probati on w hic h read, ‘The chi ld shal l abi de by the ru les and re g ula ti ons of Gul f Coas t Trade[s ] C enter .’ , [si c] in that the sai d [appel lan t] on or aboutthe 28TH d ay

of NO VEM BER , A. D. , 200 5, w as unsuc ces sfull y ter minat ed from G ulf C oastTrad e[s ] C enter

. . . .” The S tate re q uest ed th at t he tr ial co urt c ommit appel lan t t o the Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion ( “TY C” ) for a per iod o f t im e not to exceed his twenty-first bir thday

. On J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , a p p e l l a n tfi l e d a m oti o n t o s e ta s i d e t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n t o m o d i fy dis posi ti on, a ss erti ng thatthe Stat e fail ed to state, w it h reas onabl e par ti cul ar ity , t he ti me, pla ce, and manner

of the a ll eg ed probati on v iol ati ons and that the mot ion di d notprov ide him w it h s uff ic ien t not ic e to prepare a d efense. On J anuar

y 17, 2006, the S tate filed i ts firs t amende d peti ti on to modify di spos it ion , cont end ing that “the circumsta nces reg arding the cond itions of prob ation have ma terially chang ed i n tha t t he s aid chil d w as unsuc ces sfull y ter minat ed from p lac ement on N ov ember 28, 200 5.” App ellantsubse quently filed a supp lem ent al mo tion to set aside the St ate ’s amended pe ti ti on, a ss erti ng v ir tuall y t he s ame arg uments as co ntai ned i n hi s o ri g ina l moti on to se t as ide the Stat e’s peti ti on to modi fy dis posi ti on. At a he a ri n g c o n duct ed o n Jan uary 31, 200 6, th e trial court he ard evidence per taini ng to the S tate’ s p eti ti on to modi fy the t ri al cour t’ s O cto ber

13, 2005 di spos it ion

. The tr ial co urt den ied appel lan t’ s moti on to set asi de, conc lud ed that appel lan t had v iol ated the t er ms and co ndi ti ons of his probati on, a nd c ommit te d h im t o the TY C for an ind eter minat e s entenc e. Appel lan t f il ed a moti on for new tr ial on F ebr uar

y 3, 2006, w hic h, af ter a he aring, was de nied . By two issues, a p pellan t cont end s that : (1) the trial court erred in de nying his mo tion to set aside the Sta te’s mo tion to mo dif y beca use the Sta te’s moti on was uncon stituti onal ly v ag ue; a nd ( 2) the tr ial co urt er re d by al low ing tes ti monyI n r el ev ant par t , sect i on 5 1. 03 o ft he f am i l ycode def i nes d el i nquen t cond uct a s : “ conductt hat 1 v i o l a te s a la w fu l o rd e r o f a c o u rt u n d e r c i rc u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u l d c o n s ti tu te c o n te m p t o f th a t c o u rt .

. . .” T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 1 .0 3 (a )( 2 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 3 p e rt a i n i n g t o t h e a ll e ge d vio la t io n s o c c u rr in g a tG u lf Co a s tb y t h o s e wh o d id n o th a ve personal kn ow led g e of the all eg ed v iol ati ons, i n v iol ati on of the Con frontat ion Clau se and th e he ars ay

r ul e. W e affi r m. I. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW J u v e n i l e c o u rt s a re v e s t e d w i t h b ro a d d i s c re t i o n i n d e t e r mi n i n g w h e t h e r t o m o d i fy the d is posi ti on of c hil dren found to hav e eng ag ed i n del inq uent condu ct. In r e C .S. , 198 1 S.W .3d 855, 857 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2006, no pet .) ; In r e P. L. , 1 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 4 , 3 3 7 (T e x. App.–D all as 2003, no pet .)

. In rev iew ing an o rd er modi fyi ng the di spos it ion , we examine the e nti re record to deter mine w hether the tr ial c our

t acted u nreason abl y

or ar bit ra ri ly

or
w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r pr inc ipl es. In r e C .S. , 198 S.W .3d a t 857 ; In re P.L. , 106 S.W .3d a t 337

. Un d e r s e ct io n 5 4

. 0 5 (f ) o f t h e T e xa s Fa m il y Co d e , t h e t ri a l c o u rtm a y m o d ify a dis posi ti on to commi t a chi ld to TYC if, after a hear ing , it finds by a preponderance of the
ev ide nce that the chi ld v iol ated a reaso nabl e and law ful order of the c our

t. T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 54.05( f) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008) ; In r e J.M. , 133 S.W .3d 7 21, 7 24 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Christi 2003 , no pe t.). II. A N AL Y S IS A . T he St at e’s P et it io n toM od if y an d Rea son abl e N ot ice In his f irst issue on ap pea l, app ellantargues tha t the trial court erred in den y ing his moti on to se t as ide the Stat e’s peti ti on to modi fy. Sp eci fical ly , app ell ant c ontends thatthe Stat e’ s p et i ti on t o mo di fyw as u nc on s ti tu ti on al l y v ag ue a nd d ep r i v ed h i m o f du e process4

becau se itfail ed to del ine ate, w ith reason abl e par ti cul ar ity , t he ti me, pl ace, and manner of the acts all eg ed and the penal law or st andard of cond uctal leg edl y v iol ated. See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 53. 04 ( Ver non 200 2)

. W e di sag re e. 1. A pp licab le L aw

“ Th e [ Te x a s ] L e g i s l a t u re [ h a s ] prov ide d di ffe re n tr u l e s fo r d i ffe re n ts t a g e s o f a juvenile procee ding.” In r e J.P. , 136 S.W .3d 629, 63 0 ( Tex . 200 4)

. The Leg is lat ure has prov ide d tha t a peti ti on at the adj udi cat ion st ag e of a j uv eni le proceed ing mustst ate “ w it h
re asona ble par

ti cul ar ity the ti me, pl ace, and manner of the a cts al leg ed.” T E X F AM . C ODE A NN . § 53 .0 4( d) ( 1)

. The al l eg at i on s i n a pe ti ti on at th e adj ud i c at i on ph as e of a juvenile proce edin g ne ed notb e as particu lar a s a crim inal indictm entso long as the allegation s are re asona ble and defini te. See M.A.V . v . Webb Co unty

C our t at Law , 842 S.W .2d 7 39, 7 45 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 199 2, w rit denied ); see also In re F.C. , N o. 03 -0 2- 00463- CV , 200 3 T ex. App. LE XIS 4709 , at *4 (T ex. App.–Aust in June 5, 200 3, no pe t .) (mem . op. ). Addi ti onal ly , a peti ti on atthe adj udi cat ion phase of a ju v eni le proceed ing need not reci te
ev ide nti ar

y facts unl ess they

are es sent ial to proper noti ce. Se e In re B.P .H. , 83 S.W .3d 400, 405 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 20 02, n o pet .) ; see a lso In re F.C. , 200 3 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4709, at * 4. In con trast to th e plea ding requirem ent s at the adjud ication stage, the Legislature h a s no t im p o se d sp e cif ic requ ire m e n ts o n a p e ti ti o n a t th e d isp o sit io n m o d if ica ti o n st a ge of a juv eni le proceed ing

. SeeT EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 54 .05 (d) (Vernon Su pp. 200 8); se e als o In reJ. P. , N o. 04 -0 7- 00612- CV , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 7 780, at * 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o Oct. 15, 2 008, no pet . h. ) (mem. op.)

. The rele v ant stat ute, secti on 54.05( d) of the family co de, p ro v ide s t hat “ [a] hear ing to modify di spos it ion sh all be h eld on the p eti ti on ofT he vi ol at i on ofa cour t or deror ru l e ofpr obat i on al l ows t he t r i al cour t t o m odi fyt he p r i ordi sposi t i on 2 w i th o u t a n e w a d ju d i c a ti o n o f d e l i n q u e n t c o n d u c t. See I n re J. K. A. , 855 S. W

. 2d 5 8, 62 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [1 4 th D is t. ] 1 9 9 3 , n o w r it) ( n o tin g t h a t s e c tio n 5 4 .0 5 ( d ) o fth e f a m ily c o d e “ d o e s n o t m a n d a te a s e p a r a te , f u ll due- pr ocess a dj udi cat i on h ear i ng u nder54. 03" and t hat t he 54. 05( d) hear i ng i s not hi ng m or e t han t he “ hear i ng o n th e m e rit s o r fa c ts ”) ; s e e a ls o I n re R. J

. M. , N o. 05- 99- 01554 0- C V, 2000 T ex. A pp. LE X I S 5759, at * 4 ( T ex. App. –D al l as Aug. 25, 200 0, pet

. den i ed) ( m em . op. )

. T her ef or e, app el l ant i s i ncor r ect i n ar gui ng t hat t he req ui rem en t s for no t i c e c on t ai ne d i n s ec t i on 54

. 03 of t he fam i l yc o d e s h o u l d a pp l yt o t he pe t i t i on t o m od i fy di s posi t i on i n t hi s case because t he t r i al cour t di d no t com m ence a ne w adj udi cat i on h ear i ng t o de t er m i ne w h e th e r a p p e l l a n t e n g a g e d in a d d i ti o n a l d e l i n q u e n t c o n d u c t. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 54. 03( d) ( 2) ( Ver non 2 0 0 2 ) ( r e q u ir in g a p e tit io n f o ra n a d j u d ic a tio n o rtr a n s f e rh e a r in g o fa c h ild a lle g e d t o h a v e e n g a g e d in del i nquen t cond uct t o st at e “ wi t h r easona bl e pa r t i cul ar i t yt he t i m e, pl ace, and m anneroft he a ct s al l eged and th e p e n a l la w o r s ta n d a rd o f c o n d u c t a l l e g e d l y v i o l a te d b y th e a c ts

. . .”). In fa c t, a p p e l l a n t a d m i tte d i n h is s up pl em en t al m oti on t o s et as i de t he S t ate’ s pe t i t i on t o m od i fydi s po s i t i on t ha t the fam i l yco de do es no t sp ec i fy th e c o n te n ts t o b e in c lu d e d in a p e tit io n t o m o d ify d is p o s itio n a n d s ta te d t h a t “ th e s a f e s t c o u r s e o fa c tio n is t o fol l ow the g ui de l i ne s o f T ex as F am i l yC od e S ec t i on 53

. 04

. ” S e e id

. C onsi der i ng appel l ant has not ci t ed 5 the c hil d .

. . or

on the peti ti on of

the sta te, a probati on officer , or the cour t i tse lf.” T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 54.05( d)

. “R eason abl e notic e of a heari ng to modify

di spos it ion sh all be g iv en to all partie s.” Id. Therefore, t he pleadi ng req uirements for a peti ti on to modi fy dis posi ti on are l ess st ri ng ent t han t he pl eadi ng re q uirements for a peti ti on for adj udi cat ion

. See i d. ; see als o In reJ. P. , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 7 780, at * 8. In d e te rm ini ng w hether a pa rty recei v ed reason abl e not ic e, s ev eral Tex as cour ts hav e hel d tha t w hen a chi ld’ s a ttor ney appears, does not file a moti on for cont inu ance, and the c hil d and parents are presentand fully adv is ed by

the cour t as to the i ss ues before t he
cour t, rea sonab le noti ce is presumed. See , e.g ., In re J.M. , No

. 2 -0 5 -1 8 0 -C V , 2 0 0 5 T e x. App . LEXIS 97 08, a t* 7 (Te x . App .–Fo rt W orth Nov. 17, 20 05, no pe t.) (mem . op. ); In re T. E. , N o. 03 -0 4- 00590- CV , 200 5 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 266, at * 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n J uly 7, 2 0 0 5 , n o pe t. ) (m e m . o p .) (cit in g In re B.N. , N o. 03 -9 8-575- CV , 199 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 6331, at *2 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n Aug . 26, 1999, no p et.)( mem. op.) ; In r e D .E.P

. , 512 S.W .2d 789 , 791 (Tex. Civ . App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 197 4, no w rit))

. Te x as cou rts have also held that a j u v e n i l e i s o n l y e n t i t l e d t o re d u c e d d u e p ro c e s s p ro t e ct i o n s a ta d i s p osi ti on modific ati on heari ng based on a v iol ati on of a probati on c ondi ti on. In re S.J. , 940 S.W .2d 2any b i n d i n g a u t h o r i t y a d d r e s s i n g t h i s c o n t e n t i o n , we d e c l i n e t o f i n d t h a t s e c t i o n 5 3

. 0 4 o f t h e f a m i l y code

appl i es t o pe t i t i ons t o m odi fya pr i ordi sposi t i on.

C ondi t i on twent y - t wo of t he t r i al cour t ’ s pr obat i on or derpr ov i ded t hat app el l ant “ shal l abi de b yt he 3 r ul es an d r egul at i ons o fG ul fC oast T r ade[ s] C ent er . ” T he r ec ord cont ai ns: ( 1) a r epor t f r om t he Hi dal go C ou n t y J u v e n i l e Pr o b a t i o n De p a r t m e n t a n d a No v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 r e p o r t f r o m Pe n n y L o c ke , a G ul fC oast casewor k er , bot h i ndi cat i ng t hat appel l ant w as unsuccessf ul l ydi schar ged f r om G ul fC oast because a ppel l ant h a d a tt e m p te d to h a r m h im s e lfo n th r e e s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s , a p p e lla n t a tt e m p te d to e s c a p e f r o m th e f a c ility, and G ul fC oast no l ongerbel i ev ed t hat i t coul d m eet appel l ant ’ s needs; and ( 2) docu m ent at i on d em onst r at i ng th a t a p p e l l a n t i s c u rr e n tl yd e ta i n e d a t t h e H i d a l g o C o u n tyJ u v e n i l e D e te n ti o n F a c i l i ty

.

I n f act , appel l ant ’ s fa t hert est i f i ed aboutappel l ant ’ s past pr obl em s and t hat he was wor r i ed a bout 4 appel l ant bei ng co m m i t t ed t o t he T YC at t he h ear i ng o n t he St at e’ s m ot i on t o m odi fydi sposi t i on. 6 332, 339 (Tex . App.–San Antoni o 1997, no w ri t) ; In r e J.K.A

. , 8 5 5 S

. W

. 2 d 5 8 , 6 1 -6 2 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1993, w ri t den ied ); Murp hy v. State , 8 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 3 (T e x. App.

– F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 3 , n o p e t

. )

. T h i s i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e j u v e n i l e wa s a l re ady prov ide d a h ear ing w it h c omplet e due p ro ce ss p ro tecti ons w hen t he j uv eni le w as adj udi cat ed del inq uent. Murp hy, 860 S.W .2d a t 643

. 2. Disc ussi on He re , th e Sta te’ s l iv e pl eadi ng , s tated that : “The ci rc umstan ces reg ardin g the cond itions of

proba tion have ma teriallych anged in t hatt he said child w as un successf ully ter minat ed from p lac ement o n N o vem ber 28, 2005.” The S tate did not prov ide any

3 add itiona l fa cts perta ining to the rea son o r reaso ns w hy app ellant w as term inate d f rom Gu lf Coa st. H ow ev er , t he record demons trates that: (1 ) appel lan t’ s a ttor ney announ ced re ady at t he hear ing on t he pe ti ti o n t o modi fy dis posi ti on; ( 2)appel lan t’ s a ttor ney di d notfil e a moti on to co nti nue t he hear ing ; and ( 3) the chi ld and hi s p arents w ere p re sent at the hea ring and f ully

app rised abo ut th e de tails of the dispo sition hea ring. Given the se facts, 4
re asona ble notic e is pre sumed. See In r e D .E.P

. , 512 S.W .2d at 79 1; see a lso In re J.M. , 2005 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 9 708, at * 7; In reT .E. , 200 5 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 266, at * 5; In re B.N. , 1999 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 6 331, at * 2.7

W e are mi ndful t hat t he San Ant oni o C our t of Appea ls recent ly

co ncl uded t hat t he followi ng statem ent s conta ined in th e Sta te’s am end ed p etition to mo dif y dispositio n w ere suffici ent t o prov ide noti ce: [] Respon dent v iol ated Con dit ion N umber TW EN TY- THR EE ( 23) of the Cond itions of

Proba tion which states I W ILL COOPERAT E FULLY AND OBEY ALL OF T HE R ULE S OF PLAC EM EN T, w hen on or aboutthe 14th day of DE CE MB ER , A. D. , 2006, i n H ay s C ounty , Tex as, the sai d [J .P.] FAILE D T O OBEY T HE RULES OF PLA CEMENT W HE N R E S PONDENT DI SR UP TED C LASS. [] Res pondentv iol ated Con dit ion N umb e r TW EN TY- THR EE ( 23) of the Cond itions of

Proba tion which states I W ILL COOPERAT E FULLY AND OBEY ALL OF THE RU LES O F PLAC EM EN T, w hen on or aboutthe 22nd day of JAN UA RY , A.D ., 2007, in Hays Cou nty , Tex as, the sai d [J. P.] FAI LED T O OBEYTHE RULES OF PLACEMENT W HEN RESPONDENT DI SR UP TED C LASS. [] Res ponde n t v iol ated Con dit ion N umber TW EN TY- THR EE ( 23) of the Cond itions of

Proba tion which states I W ILL COOPERAT E FULLY AND OBEY ALL OF THE RU LES O F PLAC EM EN T, w hen on or aboutthe 16th day of MA RC H, A.D ., 2007, in Hays Cou nty , Tex as, the sai d [J .P.] F AILED TO OBE YTHE RU LES O F THE PLAC EM EN T W HE N RE SPON DE NT W AS DI SC HA RG ED F RO M PLAC EM EN T AS U NS UC CE SSF UL. In r e J.P. , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 7 780, at * *8- 9. In c oncl udi ng thatthe prev iou s state me nts con stitute d suf f icient no tice, th e cou rt of app eals sta ted that“the Sta te’s amended pe ti ti on s peci fical ly i denti fied: (1 ) the condi ti on of probati on v iol ated; (2) the date the v iol ati on oc cur re d; ( 3) the county i n w hic h the v iol ati on occ ur re d; and ( 4) the manner in w hic h the v iol ati on w as commi tted, i. e. , ‘ dis ru pted cl ass ’ or ‘ dis charg ed from p lac ement
as un successf ul.’” Id. at *9 (em pha sis in orig inal). It is cl ear thatthe Stat e’s peti ti on to modi fy dis posi ti on in the present cas e i s n ot as spec ific as the peti ti on re ferenc ed i n In r e J.P. See i

d. H ow ev er , l ik e the peti ti on i n In re J.P

. , t he St ate’ s peti ti on to m odi fy di spos it ion in the presen t case di d inform appe ll ant o fI n ar gui ng t hat t he St at e’ s pet i t i on t o m odi fy di sposi t i on di d not al l ow hi m t o ad equat el ypr epar e a 5 def ense, appel l ant r el i es he av i l yon F ra n k s v . S ta te , 498 S. W

. 2d 5 16, 518 ( T ex. App. –T exar k ana 1973, no wr i t )

. I n Fra nks , t he co ur t hel d t hat “ [ i ] n a r ev ocat i on o fpr obat i on ca se . . . i t i s nece ssar yt hat t he not i ce of t he h ear i ng se t outt he m annerort er m s of t he p r obat i on whi ch ha v e be en v i ol at ed i n or der t hat t he chi l d an d h i s a tto rn e yc a n b e a p p ris e d o f th e a l l e g e d vio l a ti o n s a n d p re p a re s u c h d e fe n s e a s m a ys e e m n e c e s s a ry.” Id

. H owev er , we f i nd t hi s case t o be di st i ngui shabl e be cause: ( 1) unl i k e t he p r esentcase, t he ch i l d i n Fra nks w a s n e v e r p ro v i d e d a n yn o ti c e o f th e re v o c a ti o n p ro c e e d i n g a n d n o g u a rd i a n a d l i te m w a s a p p o i n te d to r epr esentt he ch i l d’ s besti nt er est s; and (2 ) t he appel l at e cour t fa i l ed t o ci t e any pr ov i si ons oft he f am i l ycode to s u p p o rt i ts c o n c l u s i o n . S e e id

. S ec t i on 54

. 05 cl ea rl yad dre s s es t he si t ua t i on (t he ch i l d fa i l i ng t o rec ei ve not i ce oft he di sposi t i on hear i ng) fo und i n Fra nks

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 54

. 05( d)

. A j uv eni l e i s ent i t l ed to re a s o n a b l e n o ti c e , a n d w e h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a t s u c h n o ti c e w a s p ro v i d e d

. I d. 8 the p ro bati on v iol ati on—t he disc harg e from G ulf C oastas uns ucc ess ful—and prov ide d the d a t e i n w h i c h t h e v i o l a t i o n o c c u r re d

— N o v e mb e r 2 8, 2005. See i

d. F urther more, the Stat e’s or ig ina l peti ti on to modi fy a n d v ar iou s repor ts— namely

Loc ke’ s “ Summary

of Adj ust ment” a n d s ev eral re por ts is sued by

the Hi dal g o C ounty

Ju v eni le Probati on Dep artment— infor med appel lan t of the spec ificco ndi ti on of probati on th at he had
v iol ated— condi ti on number 22. C lea rl y , t he i ss ue atthe di spos it ion hear ing ce ntered on the c ircums tanc es of appell ant’ s d is charg e from G ulf C oast , of w hic h appel lan t was adeq uatel y

noti fied. G iv en th at ( 1) the facts in this ca se g iv e r is e to a presumpt ion that

5
reaso nab le not ice oc c u rr ed, (2) j uveniles are on ly entitle d to red uced due process prote ctions a t the dispositio n mo dif ication hea ring, a n d (3) ap pellan t w as ad equate ly noti fied, we c oncl ude t hat t he St ate’ s mot ion to modify was not u ncons ti tution all y v ag ue an d t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u r

td i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c re t i o n i n d e n y i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s s u p p l e me n t al moti on to se t as ide the Stat e’s peti ti on to modi fy dis posi ti on. See In re S.J. , 940 S.W .2d at 33 9; In r

e J.K.A

. , 855 S.W .2d a t 61- 62; Murp hy, 8 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d a t6 4 3

. Ac c o rd in gl y, we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue on appe al. B. T he Co nfro nt at io n Cl ause an d th e H earsay R ul e In hi s s econd is sue, appel lan t ass erts that the t ri al cour t c ommitt ed rev ersi ble er ro r9

in admitti ng , ov er

obj ect ion s, the t est imony of the S tate’ s w it ness es re g ardin g the all eg ed
v iolation s thatled to ap pellan t’s termin ation f rom Gu lf Coast be cause it was inad missible hearsay and v iol ated his r ig hts under the Con frontat ion C la u se of the Si xth A mendment to t he U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on. See U. S. C ON ST
. amend VI

. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew Be ca u se th e T e xas Su p re m e C o u rth a s h e ld t h a t ju ven ile de lin que n cy pro ce e d in gs are “ q uasi -c ri minal ” in nature, we empl oy the cr imi nal standard of rev iew for analyz ing the admis si bil ity of ev ide nce. In re B.L .D. , 113 S.W .3d 340, 351 (Tex . 200 3) ; In r e D .A.S

. , 973 S. W .2 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 8 (T e x. 19 9 8 ) (ci ti n g In re Gau lt , 387 U.S. 1, 30 ( 1967) ; In re M.A.F. , 966 S. W .2 d 4 4 8, 45 0 ( Tex . 199 8) ); see In r e U.G. , 128 S.W .3d 797 , 799 -800 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, pet. deni ed) ; see a lsoT EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 51. 17( c)( Ver non Supp. 2008)( prov idi ng thatthe “Texas Rul es of Ev ide nce a p p ly t o c ri minal ca ses and Ar ti cl es 33.03 and 37. 07 and Cha pte r 3 8 o f the code of cr imi nal procedu re appl y i n a judicial proce edin g und er this title”). W e rev iew a tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on reg ardin g the admis si bil ity of ev ide nce under

an a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n s t a n dard. Ca m er on v . St ate , 241 S.W .3d 1 5, 19 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007)( ci tin g Mo n tg o m er y v . St ate , 810 S.W .2d 372 , 391 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91)). Beca use tr ial co urts are i n the bes t posi ti on to deci de q uest ion s of admis si bil ity , app ell ate
cour ts uphol d a t ri al cour

t’ s admis si bil ity

dec is ion w hen t hat d eci si on i s w it hin the z one of
re asona ble di sag re ement. Id. An appell ate cour t maynot rev erse a tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on re g ardin g the admis si bil ity of ev ide nce sol ely

bec ause the a ppel lat e c our t di sag re es w it h the d eci si on. Id. Tex as Rul e o f

A p p ell ate P ro cedure 44. 2 out li nes the s tandard of rev iew forA s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t is a ff e c te d w h e n th e e r r o rh a s a s u b s ta n tia l a n d i n j u r i o u s e ff e c t o rin f lu e n c e in 6 d e te rm i n i n g th e o u tc o m e . S e e Kin g v . S ta te , 953 S. W

. 2d 2 66, 271 ( T ex. C r i m . App. 199 7) ( ci t i ng Kot t eakos v. U nit ed Stat es , 32 8 U

. S

. 75 0, 77 6 (19 46 ))

. 10 re v ersi ble error

i n c ri minal ca ses . SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2. Ac cordin g to the rele v ant r ule , t h e c o u rto f a p p e a l s m u s tre v e rs e a j u d g me n tu n l e s s t h e c o u rtd e t e r mines bey ond a
re asona ble doubtthatthe er ro r did not cont ri bute to t he c onv icti o n o r puni shmentof the defendant. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( a)

. Mo re ov er , if other proper ly admi tted ev ide nce prov es the s ame facts , t he er ro r is har mles s. See B ro oks v. Sta te , 9 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 7 (T e x. Crim. App . 199 9); se e al so Johns on v

. St ate , 967 S.W .2d 410, 417 (Tex . C ri m. App. 1998) (d is cus si ng the er ro neous admi ss ion of ina dmis si ble hearsay as non- cons ti tuti onal er ro r and not ing thatr ule 44.2 (b ) mandates thatthe appel lat e c our t di sreg ard non- cons ti tuti onal error unless it af

fects ap pellan t’s substa ntial rights). 6 2. A pp licab le L aw T he Sixth A mendment of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on prov ide s, in re lev ant p art, that “[ i] n al l cr imi nal prosec uti ons, the acc used shal l enj oy the ri g ht .

. . t o be infor med of the natu re and ca use o f the accu sation ; to be conf ronte d w ith the w itnesse s against him

. . . .” U.S. C ON ST . amend. VI. Thi s p ro cedural g uarantee bars t he admi ss ion of testim onia l state me nts of a w itness who doe s not ap pea r at trial unless he is una v ailable to t est ify and the d efe n dant had a pr ior oppor tuni ty to cross -e x amine him. Russea u v. State , 171 S.W .3d 871 , 880 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05). Hea rs ay “ is a s tatement , ot her

tha n o n e m a d e by

the decl arant w hil e tes ti fyi ng at the t ri al or

hear ing , offered in ev ide nce to prov e the tr uth o f the matt er as ser ted.” T EX . R. E V ID . 801( d)

. A “ matter as ser ted” i ncl udes any

m atter ex pli ci tl y

as ser ted, and any

matte r impl ied by

a s tatement , i f the probat iv e v alu e of the sta tement as offered flows from theT h e tr ia l c o u r t a llo w e d a p p e lla n t t o m a in ta in a r u n n in g o b j e c tio n a s to C o r d o n a ’s te s tim o n y. 7 11 decl arant’ s b eli ef a s to th e matt er . T EX . R. E V ID . 801( c)

. Hea rs ay i s g enerall y

not admis si ble ex ceptas prov ided b y stat ute o r ru les

. T EX . R. E V ID . 802. The admi ss ion of hearsay ev ide nce ag ain st a defendant impl ic ates the Con frontat ion C lau se b e cause t he defendant i s n ot afforded the o ppor tuni ty to confro nt t he out -o f-cour t dec larant. Si

m pson
v. State , 119 S.W .3d 262 , 269 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 03). 3. Disc ussi on On ap peal , app ell ant t akes i ss ue w it h the di spos it ion hear ing tes ti mony of John Cordona, an or ien tati on c asewor ker and coordin ator

at Gul f Coas t, and Su z ana Sa enz Ramos , an employee w it h the H ida lg o C ounty Ju v eni le Probati on D epar tment. a. Cordona’s Tes timony Cordona t est ified thathe was appel lan t’ s c asewor ker w h ile appell ant was in the
or ien tati on phas e of the prog ra m at G ulf C oast

. Cordona f urther tes ti fied as to sev eral inciden ts w here app e ll a n tviolated the rules of the pro gram at Gulf

Coast. In pa rticular, Co rd o n a n o t e d t h a twh il e a p p e ll a n twa s a tG u lf Co a s t , h e h ita wa ll , t ri e d t o ru n a wa y, ing est ed a larg e amountof Ty len ol, and poss ess e d a raz or . These i nci dents w ere of par ti cul ar co ncer n b e c a u s e appel lan t had a hi sto ry of eng ag ing i n s elf- muti lat ion

. Appel lan t
re peatedl y

obj ect ed to C ordona’ s t est imony as i nadmis si ble hearsay and a v iol ati on of the Con frontat ion C lau se, arg uin g thatCo rd o n a di d nothav e personal kn ow led g e of the
v iol ati ons, and that he was merel y rela y ing i nformati on to ld to hi m by othe rs . The S tate

7
ass e rt e d tha t C ordona’ s t est imony fell under

the presentse nse impress ion ex cept ion toT he p r esentsense i m pr essi on e xcept i on t o t he h ear sayr ul e pr ov i des t hat “[ a] st at em ent descr i bi ng 8 orexpl ai ni ng a n ev ent orcond i t i on m ade whi l e t he d ecl ar ant was pe r cei v i ng t he e v ent orcond i t i on, or i m m e d i a te l yth e re a fte r” is a d m i s s i b l e e v e n if th e d e c l a ra n t i s a v a i l a b l e to te s ti fy. T EX
. R. E V ID
. 803( 1)

. T he s afe gu ard s of rel i ab i l i t yfor a stat em en t of t he de c l ara nt’ s pres en t se ns e i m pre s s i on i nc l ud e: (1) t he repo rt at t he m om ent of

t he t hi ng t hen seen, hea r d, et c. , i s s afe f r om anyer r orf r om def ect of m em or yof

t he decl ar ant ; ( 2) t her e i s l i t t l e orno t i m e f ora cal cul at ed m i sst at em ent ; and ( 3) t he st at em ent w i l l usual l ybe m ade t o an ot her( t he wi t ness who r epor t s i t ) who woul d ha v e t he equal oppor t uni t yt o obser v e and hence t o che ck a m i s s ta te m e n t. E s p a rza v . S ta te , 31 S. W

. 3d 3 38, 342 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o 20 00, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng R abban i v . S ta te , 84 7 S

. W

. 2d 55 5, 56 0 (T ex . C ri m . A pp . 19 92 ) ( en ba nc ))

. 12 the h earsay

r ule

. See T EX . R. E V ID . 803( 1)

. The tr ial co urt o verru le d t h e maj or ity of 8 app ellant ’s objectio ns to Cordo na’s te stimo ny add ressing the alleged violations. Howev er , we need not address further the is sue of the C ordona’ s t est imony under the C onfronta ti on C lau se and hea rs ay r ule , bec ause any e rro r in the admis si on of the tes ti mony

di d notco ntr ibu te t o appel lan t’ s c ommitmentto TYC

. See Sim pson , 119 S.W .3d at 26 9; see als o T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4

. 2 ( a ). I n the Sim psondec is ion , t he Texas Cou rtof Criminal App eals con duct ed its ha rmless error r e vie w und er rule 44.2 (a) w ithou t f irst deter mini ng if the admis si on of the tes ti mony was in fact er ro neous . Si m pson , 119 S.W .3d at 26 9

. If

the ad mission of

the te stimo ny had no imp act on the decision rende red, th en it is unnec ess ar

y to deter mine w hether

i ts admis si on was appro p riat e. Id. L ik e wis e , we re v iew the enti re record to deter mine bey ond a re asona ble doubtw hether the all eg ed er ro r cont ri buted to t he out come. See i d. ; see als o T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 2(a). The er ro r, if

a n y, in admitti ng C ordona’ s t est imony w as har mles s b ecaus e oth er proper ly admi tted ev ide nce prov ed th e s ame facts

. See Brooks , 990 S.W .2d a t 287 ; se e als o Johnso n , 967 S.W .2d a t 417

. Sect ion 54.0 5 of the fam il y code prov ide s, in rele v ant par t, that “[ a]fter

the hear ing on t he meri ts or facts , t he c our

t may co nsi der

w ri tten re por

ts f rom p roba tion o f

f icers, profession al court em ployees, or prof e s s io n a l consulta nts in add ition to the t estim ony o f o the r w itnesse s.” T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 54. 05(e ). Th e recordI n ad di t i on, N or m a G onz al ez , a cour t i nv est i gat oratt he Hi dal go Count yJuv eni l e Pr obat i on O ff i ce, 9 te s tif ie d th a t a p p e lla n t is n o lo n g e ra t G u lfC o a s t. A p p e lla n t d id n o t o b j e c t t o G o n z a le z ’s te s tim o n y. 13 cont ains several reports f rom th e Hi d a lg o Coun ty Juvenile Proba tion Dep artm entw hich sta ted t hat a ppel lan t “was ordered on Judi ci al Probati on unti l his eig hteent h bir thday in the
cus tody of Gul f Coas t Trade[s ] C enter . [Appel lan t] atte m p te d t o har m hi msel f on three sepa rate occa sions; Gulf Co ast T rade [s] Cente r felt the y could no longer mee t his nee ds”
a n d t h a ta p p e ll a n ti s c u rre n t ly d e t a in e d a tt h e Hi d a lg o Co u n ty Ju ve n il e De t e n t io n Fa c il it y. 9 Also con t a in e d i n t he reco rd is Locke’s “Sum ma ry of Adjustm ent .” In this report, Lo cke detai led appel lan t’ s: ( 1) att empt t o r un away from t he Gul f C oast facil ity ; (2 ) poss ess ion of a raz or, w hich th e facility dee me d as con traba nd; (3) i nte ntion al cuttin g of his ri ght arm
w it h a raz or

blade; and (4)ex press ion thathe wanted to k il l hims elf w hen he w as tak en to the e merg ency

room after confess ing “ to s taff thathe h ad ta ken some p il ls he h ad s tored up from t he nurse. ” Appel lan t did n ot ob ject t o ei ther

of thes e repor

ts bei ng i ncl uded i n the
re cord. Mo re ov er , C ordona’ s t est imony mir ro re d these repor

ts. Be caus e s ect ion 54.0 5( e) of the fam ily

code allow ed th e trial court to con sider oth er reports in the record w hich mirrored Cordo na’s te stimo ny, we con clude thatthe error, if a n y, in adm itting Cordona ’s tes ti mony

w as har mles s. See i

d. ; se e al

so T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2( a)

. b. Ramos’s Testimony On ap peal , app ell ant c ontends t h a t Ra m os “t est ified thatsh e was bei ng made
a wa re o f in c id e n t s b y t h e J u ve n il e o f b re a k in g t h e ru le s t h ro u gh p h o n e ca ll s a tt h e fa c il it y” and t hat h er

tes ti mony

w as ina dmis si ble hearsay and v iol ated the C onfronta ti on C lau se. W e no te th at th e majority of app ellan t ’s argumen t as to th is issue perta ins to Cordo na’s tes ti mony , and thatappel lan t doe s n ot s peci fy w hic h s tatement s R am o s m a d e at the14

hear ing thathe w is hes to chal len g e on appeal

. In an y ev ent, Ramos tes ti fied g enerall y at the d is posi ti on hear ing as to appel lan t’ s all eg ed v iol ati ons. I n par ti cul ar , R amos s tated that she w as noti fied of the all eg ed v iol ati ons v ia w eekl y phone cal ls thatsh e recei v e d from Cordon a an d a “Mr

. Re y es” at Gulf Coast. App ellantrepea ted ly object ed to Ramo s’s tes ti mony

as inadmis si ble hears ay and in v iol ati on of the Con frontat ion C lau se. The t ri al
cour t ov er ru led the major ity of appel lan t’ s o bje cti ons. Howev er , once ag ain , w e c oncl ude tha t the error, if any, in a dm itting Ram os’s testim ony was ha rmless be cause the evidence als o i ncl uded se veral unc hal len g ed repor ts from the Hi dal g o C ounty Ju v eni le Probati on Depa rtme nt, a n d L o cke’s “Sum ma ry of Adjustm ent ,” all of

w hich m irrored Ramo s’s tes ti mony . See T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 54. 05( e) ; see als o T EX . R. A PP . P. 44. 2(a). Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue on appeal

. III . C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of ap pel lan t’ s is sues on appeal , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G ARZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 18t h day

of Dec ember , 200 8.