Section 51.07 of the fa mily code au t h o ri z es a juvenile court to transf er a case for 1 dispositi on from the c ounty in which the off

ense oc curr ed to the co u n t y of the c hild’s residenc e. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.07 ( West S upp. 2007). Th e Ha y s County Court

a t L aw a nd the Tr a vis County

Di str ic t Co ur

t sat a s juve nil e c ourt s. 2 Th e dis po sit ion

he ari ngin T ra

vis Cou nty wa s c on du c te d b y

an a sso c ia te jud g e wh o, a lon g wi th J u d ge M eu re r, s i gn edD. L
. T
. ’s Di s p o s i t i o n al Or d er o f C o m m i t m ent to the Texas Youth Commi ssion. A re porter’ s rec ord of the a djudication hear ing w as not prepa red or reque sted. 3 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 06 -0069 -CV

In the Matte r of D. L. T.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-23, 454 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Af te r D .L .T . w a s a dju dic a te d d e lin qu e nt b y the Ha y s Co un ty Court a t L aw, his c a se was tra nsfer red to the Tr a vis County Di str ic t Co ur t, wh ic h co mmi tte d D.L .T . to the Te xas Y ou th 1 2 Commi ssion (“TYC”) for a n indeterminate sentenc e af ter c onsidering D. L
. T.’s stipulation of evidenc e, a court summary from a juvenile probation office r, a Child Protective Ser vices (“ CPS ”) place ment repor

t, a nd witness testimony
. I n two points of err or, D.L .T. contends t h at t h e c ourt
a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in con du c tin g the dis po sit ion he ari ngwi tho ut r e c e ivi nge vid e nc e of the fa c ts adduce d at the adjudicat i o n hear ing and that ther e is insufficient e vidence supporting the court’s 3 order committing him to TYC. W e af firm the trial c ourt’s orde r.D. L .T .’ s st ipu la tio n to the c ourt , in re le va nt p art , s ta te s: 4 After having been sw orn, upon oath, said Chi l d [ D. L
. T
. ] i n the pre sence of the Child’s attorney

does her eby

in open Court make th e following judicial statement and confe ss to the following facts and ag ree s and st ipulates that these fa cts are true a nd corr ect a nd constitute the evidenc e in this case. I , [D .L .T .], w a s b or

n o n th e [] day

of [], 19 91 , a

nd Ifu rt he r a dmi t th a t: COUNT I. THEFT > = $20,000 < $100,000 On or a bout the 4th day

of De cembe r A.D., 2005, in Ha y s County , Texas, [ D.L .T.] did the n a nd the re a pp ro pr ia te pr op e rt

y ; to -w it: a

F or d p ic ku

p o f a va lue of e qu a l to $2 0, 00 0. 00 or

mor e do lla

rs , but l e ss t

ha n $ 10 0, 00 0. 00 do lla

rs ; w iththe int e nt t o d e p r i v e t h e o w n e r , J a m e s T
. N e l s o n , o f s a i d p r o p e rt y; Such conduct violates a penal law of the State of Te x as punishable by imprisonment or c on fi ne me nt i n ja il, to- wi t: Se c tio n 3 1. 03 of t he Tex as Pe na l Co de , a nd is delinquent conduc t as define d in Section 51.03(a) of the Texas Family

Code. CO UN T II . U NA UT HORIZ ED USE OF M OTOR VE HIC LE On or a bout the 4th day

of De cembe r A.D., 2005, in Ha y s County , Texas, [ D.L .T.] did then and ther e intentionall y o r k n owing ly operate a motor-pr opelled vehic le, namely : a 2006 For d pick up, without the eff ective consent of James T. Nelson, the owner there of; Such conduct violates a penal law of the State of T exas punishable by imprisonment or c on f i n e m e n t i n j a i l , t o - w i t : S e c t i o n 3 1
. 0 7 o f t h e T e xa s P e n a l C o d e , andis delinquent conduc t as define d in Section 51.03(a) of the Texas Family

Code. 2 BACK GR OUND D. L .T ., wh o w a s a

fo ur te e n- y e ar- old

y ou th, pr e se nte d th e Ha y s Coun ty

juv e nil e
cour t w it h a s ig n e d s ti p u lati o n o f e v id e n c e s tati n g th a t h e h a d e n g a g e d in d e li n qu e n t c o n d u c t by committing the off

enses of theft and una

uthorized use of a motor vehicle. See Tex. P enal Code A nn. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2007), § 31.07 (West 2003). I n the pre sence of hi s attorney and under

oath, 4 D.L .T. stipulated that in H ay s County on or about Dec ember 4, 2005, he appropr iated a pickup truckD.L .T. (a nd his attorney ) also wa ived his rig hts to trial, confrontation of w itnesses, and 5 t r i a l b y j u r

y. The last par ag raph of the s tipulation appea rs above the j udg e’s signature and states, “ The 6 fore g oing Stipulation of Evidence having been ma de and signe d by the C hild and the Attorney for the Child in open court is here by considere d approve d and g rante d.” A docke t sheet notation indicates that the c ase w as transf err ed from Hay s County

for 7 dispositi on beca

use Child Protective Service s has joint manag ing c onservatorship with D.L .T.’s m o t h e r i nT r a v i s C o u n t y. 3 wi th i nte nt t o d e pr ive the ow ne r o f i t. D .L .T . f ur the r s tip ulate d th a t he int e nti on a lly or kn ow ing ly operated that vehicle without the effe ctive conse nt of the owne r. The stipulation states that D.L .T. “conf ess[es] ” to these f

acts a nd that t h ey “a re t rue and corr ect a nd constitute the evidenc e in the
c a se .” Hi s n ota

ri zed sig natur e and

that of his a tto rn e y

a pp e ar n e ar t

he bo tt om of

the do c ume nt. 5 Be neath those sig nature s is the court’s a pproval of the stipulation. 6 On Dec ember

19, 2005, pursuant to D.L .T.’s stipulation of the evidenc e, the c ourt adjudicate d D.L .T. delinquent for theft and una

uthorized use of a motor ve hicle. See Te x. F a m. Code Ann. § 54.03 (West Supp
. 2 0 0 7 ). The c ourt subsequently signe d an orde r transf

err ing the dispositi on phase of

the case to Travis County juvenile cour

t in accor dance with section 51.07 of the fa mil y c od e , wh ic h a

uth or ize s a juv e nil e c ourt to tr ans fe r a c a se fo r dis po sit ion fr om t he c ounty in which the of

fense occur

red to the c ounty

of the c hild’s residenc e. Id . § 51.07 (West Supp. 2007). 7 The Travis County juvenile court c onducted D.L .T.’s disposition hearing on J anuar y 25, 2006. At the beg inning of the hea ring , the cour

t note d that the offe nses of theft and unauthor ized use of a motor vehicle ha d been stipulated a nd adjudicate d
. I n the stipulation, which is signed by D.L .T. and his attorne y , D.L .T. “conf esses” to the fac ts of the theft a nd unauthorized-use- of-motorvehicle of fense s for whic h he was adjudicate d. He also ag ree s that the fac ts state d in his sti pulation4

are true, c orre ct, and c onstitut e the e vidence in the case . I n rende ring its dispositi on, the court stated that it wo uld no t c on sid e r D .L .T .’ s f

e lony -t he ft c ount, bu t on ly

his a dju dic a tio n for th e state -j a il felony of unauthorized use of

a motor vehic le. I n addition to D.L .T.’s sworn stipulation, the cour t rec eived f

ac ts c o n c e r

n in g D
. L .T.’s delinquent conduc t from a c ourt summary provided by D.L .T.’s j uvenile probation officer and fr om a plac ement re port provided by CPS
. See id
. § 54.04(b) ( West S upp. 2007) (a uthorizi ng court to consider

written re ports from pr o b ati on office rs, profe ssional court employ ees, or pr of e ssi on a l c on su lta

nts du ringdis po sit ion

he ari ng ); s e e a l

s o I n r e J

. A

. W. , 976 S.W .2d 260, 264 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o 1 998, no pet.) (c oncluding that court c ould consider de tention center
re po rt s th a t ne ith e r p art

y of fe re d in to e vid e nc e duri ngdis po sit ion he ari ng ); In re A.F. , 895 S.W .2d 481, 485-86 (Te x . App.—Austin 1995, no writ) ( h o l d i ng that court c ould consider soc ial history
re po rt duri ngdis po sit ion he ari ng ). Th e juv e nil e pr ob a tio n off ic e r’ s cou rt su mma ry re ve a le d th a t th is was D.L .T.’s first adjudication; however, it wa s not the first time he had bee n char g ed with a c rime: D.L .T. had a

n aggr av at ed sexual assault of a child ca se that wa s dismis sed pendingfurther inv e s t i g a t i o n , a p e n d i n g c h ar g e a g a i n s t h i m f o r u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e ( u n r e l a t e d to this case) , and an a ctive wa rra nt for c ri m i n al m i s chief. The summary disclosed that D.L .T. spent two y ear s at a re sidential treatment c enter and had be en plac ed, unsucc essfully , in two differ ent foster homes afte r his rele ase f rom the treatment center . The summary also containe d D.L .T.’s admission that he has fr iends who ar e gang members. The probation off icer ’s summary

conclude d by rec ommending twe lve-months’ probation, forty hours of c ommunity

service , and counseling f or D. L .T ., bu t it

no te d th a t he wa s e lig ibl e fo r c omm itm e nt t o T YC
.Th e se c on d p a g e of the te n- pa g e re po rt

fr om C P S (page 10 7 of the c le rk ’s re c or d) is 8 missing and has not been located by the Travis County Clerk’s Of fice . Howeve r, the infor

mation i nt h e r em ai n d er

o f t h e r ep o rt i s s u ff

i ci en tt o s u

p p o rt t h e c o u rt ’s ru l i n g. 5 T h e CPS report pr ov ide d to the c ourt state d th a t on

No ve mbe r 2 2, 20 05 —s ho rt ly 8 be fo re his a djudi cat io n— D.L. T. sto le a c ar f ro m hi s f os te r p are nts , a

ba nd on e d it in a pa rk inglot , and fle d to his g irlfriend’ s home. When a ca seworke r aske d D.L .T. why he took the ca

r, he r eplied that “his g angleade r ca lled him and asked for him to repor t to his location.” When asked why he
was at his girlfr iend’s house, D.L .T. responde d that “his g irlfriend mig ht be pre g nant and he went the re to s e e ho w s he wa s d oin g .” D. L .T .’ s f os te r p are nts inf

or me d CPS that th e y

c ou ld n ot t

ru st D.L .T. and re quested his dischar g e fr om their home. CPS complied and plac ed D.L .T. in another foster home
. Th e ne xt we e k, a c c o r d ingto t he CPS r e po rt , D .L .T . a

nd ano the r p e rs on

sto le a ve hic le from the c ampus of Ande rson Hig h Sc h o o l and abandoned it on a tra in track, w here it was later hit by an A mt

r a k tr a in
. F o u r d ay s late r , o n D e c e mb e r 1 , 2 0 0 5 , c a mp u s - s u r v e il la n c e c amer as at Ander son Hig h School rec orded D .L .T. and a nother pe rson stealing a van. After war d, D.L .T. picked up his g ir lf

ri e nd fr om h e r h ou se and

fa ile d to re tur

n to his fost er ho me that e ve nin g . T he Au sti n Police Depa

rtment and CPS were notified that D.L .T. was mi ssing, and he was place d on runaw ay status . CPS la te r l e arn e d o f a lle g a tio ns that on De c e mbe r 1 or

2, D. L .T . bro ke int o the ho me of his fo rm e r f os te r p are nts and

sto le mon e y

and e le c tr on ic s f

ro m th e m. The re port also disclosed t hat on Dec ember 4, 2005, D.L .T. and his g irlfriend w ere
arr ested a nd detained in the H ay s County J uvenile Detention Center afte r beingstopped by police in Dripping Springs for reckless driving i n a st olen vehicle. CPS informed the police that D.L .T. had6

wa rr ants in Tr a vis County fo r t he ft and c ri min a l tr e sp a ss at A nd e rs on Hi g h Sc ho ol. Th e po lic e tol d CPS that the y wo uld c a ll Tr a vis County to d e te rm ine wh e the r D .L .T . s ho uld re ma in i n H ay s Co un ty
or be tr ans fe rr e d to Trav is C ounty . CPS a lso sp ok e wi th D .L .T .’ s juve nil e pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r i n Hay s County , who stated that “ the re commendation for [D.L .T.] mi g ht be for him to g o to TYC.” CPS stated that it ag ree d with that rec ommendation.

The CPS report furthe r re veale d that D.L .T. was not prog ressing well i n thera py and had proble ms in school, including f ailing c erta in classes, a ccumulatingtwenty -four tardies a nd four tr ua nc ie s, and pa rt ic ipatin g in t

hr e e fi g hts
. D. L .T . d id n ot o ff

e r a ny e vid e nc e a t the a dju dic a tio n he ari ng . B e c a us e ne ith e r p a rt

y
re qu e ste d p re pa

ratio n o f t

he re po rt e r’ s r e c or d o f t

he a dju dic a tio n h e ari ng , it was un a va ila ble to the Tr a vis County

juv e nil e c ourt
. Ho we ve r, the re wa s no o bje c tio n to the c ourt ’s pr oc e e din g wi th the disposition.

Th e c ourt

he ard dispo sit ion

re c omm e nd a tio ns fr om D .L .T .’ s mo the r, a CPS
case worke r Carla ce Gilbert, and re prese ntatives from Court Appointed Spec ial Advocates (CASA) Fe rdinand Stehling , J uanita Stehling, and Lucia Whit e. D.L .T.’s mother re quested that he r son be rele as e d f r o m d e te n ti o n an d g iv e n p r o b a ti o n . Ca s e w o r k e r G il b e rt te s ti f

ie d th a t D
. L
. T
. s hould be pla c e d in a re sid e nt i a l t

r e a t m e nt c e nt e r , no tin g D. L .T .’ s uns uc c e ssf uln e ss w itha lte rn a tiv e pla c e me nt: “whe n [D.L .T.] was in a thera peutic foster

home, he br oke it down doing all of his behavior s.” Fe rdinand Stehling opined t hat D.L .T. should have CP S supervision and be place d in a re sidential treatment center . J uanita Stehling sug g ested, “I n a place whe re he g ets much thera py .” White added her r ecommenda

tion that D.L .T. be re moved from de tention.7 Af te r h e a ri ng tes ti mo ny

andcon si deri ng D.L.T.’s st ip ul ati on of ev id e nc e , th e juv e nil e probation office r’s court summary , and the CPS place ment repor t, the court committed D.L .T. to the Texas Youth Comm ission for an indeter minate sentenc e. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(d)( 2) (West Supp. 2007). This appeal followe d.
DI SCU SSIO N Stand ard of review

Juve nil e c ourt s p osses s br oa d d isc re tio n to de te rm ine the dis po sit ion of a c hil d adjudicate d delinquent. In re C.G. , 162 S.W .3d 448, 452 (Tex. Ap p . — Da llas 2005, no pet.); In re J .R. , 907 S.W .2d 107, 110 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ). Absent a showing of abuse of discretion, we will not dis turb the finding s of the juvenile c ourt. In re M .S. , 940 S.W .2d 789, 791 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 97 , no wr it)
. A c ourt a bu se s its dis c re tio n wh e n it a c ts in an u nrea so na ble and ar bitrary manner , or without r efe renc e to any g uiding r ules or princ iples. See B eaumont Bank , N.A. v. Buller , 806 S.W .2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991).

F i n d i n g s o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u rt ar e r e v i e w a b l e f o r l e g a l an d f

a c tu a l s u f f i c i e n c y. In re C.C

. , 13 S.W .3d 854, 857 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.) (op. on re h’g ). In revie wing for f actua l sufficie n cy , we consider a nd weig h all of the e vidence , and if the f inding is so ag ainst the g reat weight an d p re p ondera

nce of the evidenc e as to be manifestly unjust, we set aside the dispositi on order and rema

nd the ca se for

a new dispositi on hear ing. Id. In revie wing for leg al suffic iency , we consider the evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the f inding a nd deter mine whether

any rational tr ie r o f f a c t c ou ld h a ve fo un d tha t the e le me nts of the re qu ir e me nt we re pr ov e d be y on d a re a so na ble doubt. Id. ; In re M

.S. , 940 S.W .2d at 791-92.8

Di spo sit ion with outadj udic at ion -h e ar ing tr ans c r ipt

I n h is f ir st p oin t of

e rr or , D .L .T . c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in conductingthe disposition hearing without rece iving e vidence of fa cts adduc ed at the a djudication hear ing. He argues that at the dispositi on hear ing, the court had the stipulation of evidenc e and the adjudication order but lac ked a transcr ipt of the adjudication hearing . D.L .T. failed to take any action pre servingthis complaint with t he trial court. As a g ener al rule, a complaint must be raised in t he tr ia l c ourt

a s a pr e re qu isi te fo r a

pp e llate c on sid e rati on . Tex
. R. A pp . P. 33 .1 (a ). B e c a

us e D.L .T. did not obje ct to c onducting the dispositi on hear ing without a transcr ipt from the adjudication hear ing ( nor did he re quest prepa ration of the repor

ter’s rec ord), he waived this complaint. See id .; see also In reV.J. , No. 12-05-00324-CV, 2006 Tex. App. L EXI S 6063, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Ty ler 2006, no pet.) (me m. op.).

Ev e n if D. L .T .’ s c omp la int

we re pr e se rv e d, no thi ngin t he fa mil y c od e re qu ir e s a juvenile cour

t to order prepa

ration of the repor

ter’s rec ord of the adjudication hear ing and to consider that r e c or d in

makin g its dis po sit ion . Wh ile subs ect io n 54 .04( b) of the fa mil y c od e c on ta ins a hear say exception expanding the information t hat i s available for the juve nile court’s c onsideration,

see T e x. F a m . C o d e A n n . § 5 4
. 0 4 ( b ) ; In r e C .J.H. , 7 9 S. W.3 d 6 98 , 7 05 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2002, no pet.), the c ode does not spec ify that the cour

t must order a r eporte r’s re cord sua sponte and consider that information, even if the cour t has bee n provided with a stipulation of evidence from the juvenile, a c ourt summary fr o m t he juvenile’ s probation offic er, a nd a plac ement re port from CPS . We overrule D.L .T.’s first point of er ror.9

Suffic ie nc y o f ev ide nc e suppo r ti ng o r de r of c om m it m e nt

I n his second point of er ror, D.L .T. contends that ther e is i n s ufficie nt evidence supporting the court’s or der c ommitt ing him to TYC. A court may commit a child to TYC without a dete rminate sente nce if

the cour t finds that there is a need for disposition and that the child eng ag ed in delinquent conduct violating a pena l l aw o f the State of Te x as of the g rade of fe lony
. See Te x. Fam. Co de Ann. § 5 4. 04 (d )( 2) . T he c ourt mus t a lso fi nd

that: ( 1) it i s in

the c hil d’ s b e st interest to be placed outs ide t he home; (2) reasona ble efforts were made to preve nt or eliminate the need for the child’s remova l f rom the home; and (3) the child cannot r ece ive the quality of ca re a nd level of support and supervision at home that is ne cessa ry to me et the conditions of probation. Id
. § 54 .0 4( i) (1 ) (We st Su

pp . 2 00 7) ; In re C.C ., 13 S.W .3d at 857. D.L .T. was statutoril y elig ible for TYC beca

use he w as adjudg ed delinquent f or the c ommissi on of a f

elony . He doe s not contend that the statutory

requi re m en t s of subsec tion 54.04(i)(1) have not bee n met. The juvenile c ourt’s “Dispo s i t i o n al Or d er

o f C o m m i t m en tt o t h e T ex as Yo u t h C o m m i s s i o n ” c o n t ai n s ea ch o f t h e f i n d i n gs require d by

subsection 54.04(i)( 1). Moreove r, the c ourt h ad s u fficient evidence to support the finding s in its order of commitment. D.L .T. ac knowledg es that the c ourt summary included his cha rge s for a g g ravated
se xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d (w hic h wa s dism iss e d p e nd ingfu rt he r i nv e sti g a tio n) and

un a uth or ize d u se of a ve hicle, and disclosed his a ctive war rant for criminal mischief. But he ar g ues that he should not be committed to TYC beca use he ha d no prior adjudications and his curre nt offense was nonviolent and “f airly minor.” Howe ver, the rec ord re flec ts that D.L .T. stipulated to his unauthor i z ed use of
a mot or ve hic le in H ay s County , a fe lony of fe ns e that ma de him

e lig ibl e fo r c omm itm e nt t o T YC
.10

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.04(d)( 2); Tex. Penal C ode Ann. § 31.07. The probation office r noted that D.L .T. was e ligible f

or TYC commitment a

nd a repor t f rom CPS showed that it ag ree d with the Hay s County

juvenile probation officer who s tated that “the recommendation for [D.L .T.] mi g ht be for him to g o to TYC.”

Th e c ourt ha d e vid e nc e su

pp or tin g its fi nd ingtha

t it wa s in D. L .T .’ s b e st i nte re st t o be plac ed outside the home, that reasona ble ef forts we re ma de to pre vent or e liminate the need f or D.L .T.’s re moval from his foster home , and that D.L .T. was not beingprovided the qua lity of ca re and leve l of support and supervision in his home t hat he needed to other wise mee t the conditions of probation. D.L .T. had a lrea dy spent two y ear s at a re sidential treatment c enter . After his relea se, he wa s place d in foster homes twice , both times unsuc ce s s fu l ly . D.L .T. ran a way from his foster pare nts , d em o n s t rate d a patter n of truanc y

and beha

vioral problems in school, and w as not pr og re s s i n g w e l l i n t h e r a

p y . M o r e o v e r , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e C P S r e p o rt , D
. L
. T
. b r o k e i n t o th e ho me of h i s fo rm er fo s t er pa

rents, stole their money

and ele ctronics, a

nd took their ca

r. Ther e wa s no evidenc e that appellant’ s mother, another relative, or foster home could provide the quality of ca re and leve l of support and super vision that D.L .T. nee ded. Ba sed on these f

acts in the re cord, the court stated:
I ’m g oing to put [D.L .T.] in TYC.
. . . [D.L .T.] needs counseling but [ he] is breaking the law on a re pe a te d ba sis and sa bo ta g ing e ve ry e ff

or t th a t CPS i s se tti ngup to h e lp him
. Th e se la st o ff

e ns e s, qu ite fr ank ly , I

do n’ t se e the m a s p sy c ho log ic a l of fe ns e s. Th e y ’r e jus t c ri me s. I t’ s a se ri e s o f c ri me s, a

pp are ntl y fo r t he fu n o f i t, w ith a bsol ut ely no tho ug ht t o h is r e sp on sib ili ty fo r t hat a t a ll. So I ’m

g oin g to c omm it [D. L .T .] to TY C.11 After consideringand we ighing all of t he evidence in a neutral light, we conclude that the cou rt ’s finding s supporting the order of commitment to TYC are not so c ontrary to the g reat weig ht and pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e as to be manife stly unjust. Se e In re C.C

. , 13 S.W .3d at 857. Thus, the evidenc e is fac tually sufficie nt to s u p p o rt the cour t’s finding s. Additionally , afte r consideringthe evidenc e in t he li g ht most favor able to the finding s, we c onclude that a ny rational trier of fac t could have f

ound that the re quirements of subse ction 54.04(i)(1) supporting t h e orde r of commitme n t to TYC were proved be y ond a re asonable doubt. See I n re M.S. , 940 S.W .2d at 79 1- 92 ; In re J

.D. , 773 S.W .2d 604, 606 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1989, writ dism’d w.o.j.) (holding that e vid e nc e in re c or d of juv e nil e ’s ba c kg ro un d, be havio ra l pr ob le ms, and lack o f ap pr op ri a te alternatives for re habilitation were sufficie nt to support trial court’s order of indefinite c ommitm ent to T YC ). Ac c or din g ly , th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

the fi nd ing s. B e c a us e the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s a re su pp or te d b y the re c or d, it d id n ot a

bu se its discretion in committing D.L .T. to TYC. D.L .T.’s sec ond point of err or is overr uled.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled both of D.L .T.’s poi nts of error, we affirm the trial cour t’s order
.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: Jul y

9, 2008