1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... To prot ec tt he pr i vac y of t he chi l d, w e refer

t o hi m by ps eud onym . T e x . R . A p p . P . 9 .8 (c ). 

## CO URT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TO F TE XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 7 9 - CV IN T H E M A T T E R O F C .C .B .

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 323RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt roduc t i on A ppel l antC .C .B . ( “C al vi n”) 2 ap pea l s t he t r i al co urt ’ s m odi fi ed order of d i sp o sit i o n c o m m ittin g h i m to th e T e x a s Y o u th C o m m i ss i o n (“T Y C ”). I n tw o i ssues, C al vi n argues t hatt he t r i al courtabused i t s di scret i on by fai l i ng t o order fu rt h e r m e d ic a l e v a lu a t io n s t o d e t e r m in e t h e e x t e n to f t h e h a r m c a u s e d b y h is2

con cus si ons an d t hathe rec ei ved i nef fec t i ve as si st anc e of couns el by vi rt ue of h i s a ttorn e y ’s fa i l u re to re q u e st fu rt h e r tes ti n g an d i n v e sti g a te a p o ss i b l e “p o stc o n c u ss i o n sy n d rom e ” d i a g n o sis. W e a ffi rm th e d i sp o sit i o n o f th e tr i a l co u rt . I I . Fac t ual an d proce dural ba ck ground I n hi s i ni t i al ap pearanc e i n c ourt , Cal vi n w as adj udi ca t ed del i nque ntfor unau t ho r i z e d us e o f a m ot or

v e hi c l e , a s t a t e j a i l fe l on y of fe ns e . Te x. Pe nal C ode A nn. § 31. 07 (V er non 2003) . The t r i al cou rt pl ac ed C al vi n on proba t i on for one year , st art i ng N ovem ber 2 , 2 00 7. C al vi n addi t i onal l y had an agg ravat ed ass a ul t of

fe ns e , da t i ng ba c k t o O c t ob e r 2007, re du c e d a nd prob a t e d as a m i s de m e a no r

o n Ja nu a r

y 14, 2008 . O n t h e n ig h to f

J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , o f

fic e rs c a u g h tC a lv in a n d s o m e o f h is fr i end s at t em pt i ng t o brea k i nt o a ve hi cl e. Cal vi n m ana ged t o brea k free from t he offi cer

ar rest i ng hi m . Tw o days l at er on Jul y 20 , 20 08 , o ffi cers st opp ed C a l v i n a n d tw o o th e r b o y s ; C a l v i n to l d th e o ffice rs h i s n a m e w a s “ T e rry W i l l ban ks . ” Cal vi n t hen fl ed from t he of fi ce rs and l ed a c has e t hrough yards and ove r

fenc es . O f

fi ce rs us ed pepp er

spray t o f i nal l y t ak e Cal vi n i nt o c us t ody, a n d th e c h a s e re s u l te d i n a n i nj u ry to a n o ffice r. O n A ugu st8, 20 08 , t he S t at e fi l ed a fi rstam ended m ot i on t o m odi fy di sposi t i on, al l egi ng t hatC a l v i n’ s conduct had vi ol at ed hi s court - ordered prob a t i on . Th e m ot i on s t a t e d t ha t Cal vi n’ s a c t i on s vi ol a t e d s e ve ra l l aw s,3 ... T h e m o ti o n a l s o c o n ta i n e d fo u r p a ra g ra p h s a s s e rti n g th a tC a lv in

at t em pt ed t o com m i to r co m m i t t ed tw o burgl ar i es, b utthe S t at e w ai ved t hose cases. 3 s pe c i fi c a l l y hi s c on du c ti n ( 1) fl e e i ng Offi c e r C. D. Ri l e y du r i ng a n a r re s t , ( 2) fl ee i ng Offi ce r

J. Parham dur i ng a n ar res t , and ( 3) i nt ent i ona l l y gi vi ng a fal se or fi c ti ti o u s n a m e to a p e a c e o ffice r. 3 Tex. Pena l C ode A nn. §§ 38. 0 2 (V er non S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ), 3 8 .0 4 (V e rno n 2 0 0 3 ). T h i s c o n d u c t co n sti tu ted C a l v i n ’s se v e n th refer ral t o Juven i l e Probati on S er vi ces. A tt he adj udi ca t i on ph as e o f hi s hea r i ng, C al vi n adm i t t ed t o vi ol at i ng t he t er m s of

hi s probati on and com m i tti n g th e of fenses ass ert ed by t he S t at e. C al vi n st i pul at ed t o evi den ce su pport i ng t he al l ega t i ons i n t he St at e’ s pet i t i on. A tt he di sp os i t i on ph as e o f hi s hea r i ng, t he St at e o f fered C al vi n’ s so ci al hi st or y, ps ych ol ogi ca l ev al uat i on, and res ource st af fi ng repo rtw i t houtobj ec t i on. The so ci al hi st or

y repo rtgave var i ous fac t s abo utCal vi n’ s j uve ni l e h i st or y, i ncl udi ng hi s hi st ory w i t h al coho l and hi s com pl et i on of t he Fam i l y Part nershi p Program ( “FPP ”) tw o w eeks pr i or to t he Jul y 20 08 of

fenses. The soci al hi st ory i ncl uded a b ri e f p s y c h i a tri c e v a l u a ti o n s e c ti o n d e ta i l i n g C a l v i n ’s tra n s fe r to M i l l w o o d , a p sy c h i a tr i c fac i l i ty, i n A p ri l 2 0 0 7 d u e to a n i n c i d e n t w h e re C a l v i n th rew a kn i fe at hi s si st er and “[ t ore] up t he hous e. ” The repo rt st at ed t hat w hi l e b ei ng t rea t ed atM i l l w ood, Cal vi n w as di agn os ed w i t h “b i pol ar [ di so rder] , di srupt i ve4

b e h a v io r

[d is o rd e r], a n d d e p re s s io n .” T h e s o c ia l h is t o r y a ls o s t a t e d t h a tC a lv in “refused t o t ake hi s prescr i bed Lexap ro, Respr i dol , and C ogen t i n” m edi cat i ons, and t hathi s m ot her

refused t o ret ur n for furt her doct or ’ s vi si t s. Th e soci al hi st ory st at ed t hatC al vi n’ s m ot her w as “over

w hel m ed by her parent i ng responsi bi l i t i es” and had been “ unsuccessful ” i n usi ng w hatshe had l ea r ned w i t h t he as si gne d cou ns el or and j uve ni l e proba t i on of fi ce r . A tt he end of t he so ci al hi st or

y, t he repo r ts t at ed t hatCal vi n ha d de m ons t rat ed t hathe w as “a t hreat t o hi s hom e and t hi s com m uni ty” and t hat TY C w a s a “m u ch m ore secure envi ronm ent ” t o ser ve C al vi n’ s needs. D r . S heree G al l agher , a cl i ni cal psychol ogi st , aut hored t he psycho l ogi cal repo r to ffered by t he St at e. Cal vi n’ s proba t i on of fi ce r ha d requ es t ed t he eva l uat i on t o de t er m i ne C al vi n’ s t rea t m entopt i ons . D r . G al l agh er’ s repo rtga ve an over vi ew o f C al vi n’ s backg roun d and m ent al st at us based on hi s i nt er vi ew a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l te s ts . H e r re p o rt s ta te d th a t h i s th o u g h t p ro c e s s e s w e re “l uci d, l ogi cal , and conc ret e” and t hathi s short -and l ong - t er m m em ory w as i nt ac t . Cal vi n’ s sc ores for verbal t as ks w ere “a verage t o bel ow av erage , ” and hi s scores for

n on- ver bal tas ks w ere co nsi st ent l y average; b ot h t est s reveal ed i m pul si ve behavi or t hat hi ndered hi s soci al j udg m ent . D r . G al l agher expressed con ce r n a boutCal vi n’ s hi st or y of s i x c onc us si ons be tw ee n 2005 and 2007, but4 ... “C onduc tdi so rder” i s defi ned as “ a b eha vi or di so rder

of ch i l dhood or a d o le s c e n c e c h a ra c t e r iz e d b y a p a t t e r n o f c o n d u c tin w h ic h e it h e r t h e b a s ic ri g h ts o f o th e rs o r th e s o c i e ta l n o rm s o r ru l e s a p p ro p ri a te fo r a c e rta i n a g e a re vi ol ated . ” A m eri ca n H eri t ag e S t ed m an ’ s M ed i ca l D i cti on ary ( 2 0 0 2 ), a v a ila b le a t h ttp ://d i c ti o n a ry .re fe re n c e .c o m /b ro w s e /c o n d u c t% 2 0 d i s o rd e r. 5 in d ic a t e d s h e d id n o th a v e m e d ic a l re c o rd s t o u n d e rs t a n d t h e e x t e n to f h is i nj ur i es. D r . G al l agher d i d no tco m e t o a de fi ni t i ve con cl us i on on t he so urce of C a lv in ’s “ a c t in g -o u t ” b e h a v io r ; ra t h e r , s h e s t a t e d in h e r s u m m a r y t h a t , if

b ra in d a m a g e w a s fou n d , th e d i a g n o sis co u l d b e a “ P e rso n a l i ty C h a n g e d u e to M ul t i pl e H ead I nj ur i es. ” D r . G al l a g h e r t hen st at ed t hati f “no neurol ogi cal i m p a i rm e n t i s fo u n d , th e d i a g n o s i s m a y m o re a c c u ra te l y b e C o n d u c t D i s o rd e r, A d o l e s c e n t O n s e t T y p e .” 4 D r. G al l agher gave several recom m endati ons, i ncl udi ng “a com prehensi ve neurol ogi cal eval uat i on” for hi s previ ous head t ra u m a s , a “ n e u ro p s y c h o lo g ic a l e v a lu a t io n ” t o d e t e r m in e if a p o s s ib le i m pai r m entm ay hav e af fec t ed hi s abi l i ty t o c ont rol hi s i m pul se s and an ger, an d “resi denti al t reat m enti ncl udi ng i nt ensi ve psychotherapy” for hi s i ssues of

l oss a n d ab a n d o n m e n t. D ur i ng t he hea r i ng, C al vi n’ s at t or ney as ke d hi m w hy h e w as nott ak i ng hi s prescr i bed m edi cat i ons, an d C al vi n t est i fi ed t hath e d i d not l i ke t he w ay t hey m a d e h im fe e l “ lik e a z o m b ie .” T h e t r ia l c o u rta s k e d C a l v i n a b o u th is s ix6

con cus si ons , an d he s t at ed t hathe ha d s eve ral head i nj ur i es from “ m es si ng around, . . . pl ayi ng t ag, j um pi ng ov er a t enn i s ne t. . . ri di ng [ hi s] bi ke an d bei ng hi tand g e tti ng head i nj ur i es t here. ” Cal vi n confi r m ed t hatt he hospi t al t re a t e d h im a ft e r

e a c h c o n c u s s io n a n d e x p la in e d h is inju r ie s t o h im . C a l v i n ’s a tto rn e y a s k e d C a l v i n i f h e fe l t “ s o m e ti m e s a s th o u g h th e re m i g h t b e s o m e t h i n g w ro n g w i t h [ h i s ] b ra i n ” o r i f h e t h o u g h t t h a t h e w as not

“ t h in k in g c le a r ly ” o r u n d e rs t a n d i n g w h a tw a s g o in g o n a ro u n d h im . C a lv in te s ti fi e d , “N o , I u n d e rs ta n d w h a t i s g o i n g o n a ro u n d m e . M o s to f t h e ti m e , I c a n ’tre a lly c o n c e n t ra t e o n m o s tt h in g s , t h o u g h .” C a lv in t h e n c la r ifie d t h is st at em entby st at i ng t hathe “ ca n’ tke ep focu se d” an d t hatt hi s st art ed t o oc cur aft er t he concu ssi ons. C al vi n’ s at t or ney ad dres se d Cal vi n’ s hi st or y of head i nj ur i es i n hi s cl os i ng argum ent , s t at i ng [ i ] f i n factt he psycho l ogi cal reporti s a ccurat e, i tw oul d seem i m p o rt a n t be fo re th e C o u rtto m a k e a d e c i sion ab o u t w h a t t o d o to have th e n e u rol ogi cal t est i ng do ne t o see i f som e of

t hese l aw vi ol at i ons m ay have som et hi ng t o do w i t h hi s m ent al st at us w hi ch h a s d is in t e g ra t e d p e r h a p s b e c a u s e o f t h e s e c o n c u s s io n s , s o I w o u ld u rge the C o u rtto th i n k ab o u t do i n g tha t. The St at e a sk ed for

co m m i t m entt o TYC i n i t s cl osi ng a rgum ent , ci t i ng C al vi n’ s previ ous opport uni t i es for reha bi l i t at i on a nd hi s con t i nue d t hrea tt o t he c o m m u n i ty. T h e tr i a l co u rtfou n d tha t i t w a s i n the ch i l d ’s b e st i n tere st to7

revo ke hi s proba t i on a nd c om m i thi m t o TYC unt i l h e rea che d t he age of ni net ee n. Cal vi n a ppe al s t hi s di sp os i t i on. III. O rder

of furt her ne urol ogi ca l t es t i ng b y tri a l c o u rt I n hi s fi rsti ss ue, Cal vi n argue s t hatt he t r i al courtabus ed i t s di sc ret i on by com m i t t i ng hi m t o TYC “ w i t houtfurt her t es t i ng” de sp i t e h i s “h i st or y of bl unt t raum a i nj ur i es t o t he head. ” C al vi n argues t hata resi denti al i n- pat i entprogram w oul d have been a vi abl e al t er nat i ve, i f a n eurol ogi cal exam i nat i on had reveal ed

“ p a th o l o g i c a l d a m a g e to v a ri o u s a re a s o f th e b ra i n .” A . S t andard of

Rev i ew A j uve ni l e c ourtha s broad di sc ret i on t o de t er m i ne a s ui t abl e d i sp os i t i on fo r a c h i l d w h o h a s be e n a dj u d i c a ted a s ha v i n g en g a g e d i n d e l i n q u e n t co n d u c t. I n re H. G. , 9 9 3 S . W . 2 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 3 (T e x . Ap p . — S a n An t o n i o 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t . ) . An abu se of

di sc ret i on oc curs w hen t he j uve ni l e c ourtac t s unrea so nab l y or a rb i tra ri l y w i th o u t re fe re n c e to a n y g u i d i n g ru l e s o r p ri n c i p l e s . I n re K . J . N. , 103 S .W .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 6 5 – 6 6 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t. ). I n ap p rop ri a te cases, l ega l a n d fact ual suf fi ci ency are rel evantfact ors i n assess i ng w het her th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n . I n re C. J. H. , 79 S. W . 3d 698, 702 (Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 2, no pet . ) . M erel y because a t r i al courtm ay deci de a m a t t e r w it h in it s d is c re t io n in a d if fe re n tm a n n e r

t h a n a n a p p e lla t e c o u rtw o u ld8

i n a si m i l ar

ci rcum st ance does not dem onst rat e thatan ab use o f di scret i on has o c c u rre d . I d. a t702. A n ab u se o f disc reti o n d o e s n o t oc c u r w h e re t h e tr i a l co u rtb a se s i ts deci si on on confl i ct i n g evi dence . I n re B. N . F. , 120 S . W . 3d 873, 877 (Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 200 3 , n o pet . ) . Fu rt her, an ab us e o f di sc ret i on do es not o c c u r as l o n g as so m e e v i d e n c e o f s u b sta n ti v e a n d p rob a ti v e ch a rac ter ex i sts to s u p p o rt th e tri a l c o u rt’s d e c i s i o n . In re C .J .H ., 7 9 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 2 . In cond uct i ng t he revi ew , w e engage i n a tw o- prong ed anal ysi s, ( 1 ) di d t he t r i al c ou rth a ve s uf

fi c i e nti nf

orm a t i on up on w hi c h t o e xe rc i s e i t s d i s c re t i on , a nd ( 2) d i d th e t r i al courter r i n i t s appl i cat i on of di scret i on? S e e I n re A. D. , 2 87 S .W .3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 6 (T e x . A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 9 , p e t. fi l e d .); I n re M . A. C. , 999 S .W .2 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 6 (T e x . A p p .— E l P a s o 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.). B. A ppl i cabl e Law A tri a l c o u rt m a y m o d i fy a ju v e n i l e ’s d i s p o s i ti o n i f th e c o u rt, a fte r a hea r i ng t o m odi f

y di sp os i t i on, fi nds by a p repo nde ranc e o f t he evi den ce t hatt he chi l d vi ol at ed a rea so nab l e and l aw ful order of t he cou rt . Tex. Fam . Code Ann. § 54. 05(f

) ( V er non 2008) . The t r i al c ourtha s broad di sc ret i on t o m odi f y t he di sposi t i on of a del i nqu ency adj udi cat i on i f t he chi l d has been adj udi cat ed del i nque ntfor

co m m i t t i ng a fel ony or m i sd em ea nor

on a tl ea stone previ ous occ as i on a nd t he con duc tw hi ch i s t he ba si s of t he currentadj udi ca t i on9

occ ur red aft er

t he dat e o f

t he previ ous adj udi ca t i on . T ex . Fa m . Code Ann. § 5 4 .0 5 (f); I n re C. J . H. , 7 9 S. W . 3d at7 02. The vi ol at i on of an y on e c ondi t i on of proba t i on i s su f

fi ci entfor

a t r i al co urtt o e nt er an order

m odi f yi ng t he j u v e n i l e ’s p ri o r d i s p o s i ti o n . S e e I n re S . G. V. , No. 04- 05- 00605 - CV , 2006 W L 9 2 3 5 7 6 , a t * 3 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o A p ri l 5 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .). T h e T e x a s F a m ily C o d e p e r m it s a t r ia l c o u rtt o c o m m ita c h ild t o T Y C in a m o d ific a t io n o f

a d is p o s it io n if

itm a k e s t h e re q u ire d fin d in g s t h a t : ( A ) itis in th e c h i l d ’s b e st i n tere st to b e p l a c e d o u tsi d e th e h o m e ; (B ) rea so n a b l e effo rt s w ere m ade t o preve ntor el i m i na t e t he nee d for t he chi l d’ s rem ova l from t he h o m e a n d t o m a k e i t p o s s i b l e fo r t h e c h i l d t o re t u r n t o t h e c h i l d ’ s h o m e ; a n d (C) t he chi l d, i n t he chi l d’ s hom e, cannot be provi ded t he qual i ty of care and l evel of s upportan d s upe r

vi si on t ha tthe ch i l d ne eds t o m ee tt he con di t i ons of p ro b a ti o n . T e x . F a m . C o d e A n n . § 5 4 .0 5 (m )(1 ). C . A n a ly s is C al vi n d oe s notdi sp ut e t hathe vi ol at ed hi s proba t i on order or t hatt he t r i al co urtha d t he aut hor i ty t o m odi f y hi s di sp os i t i on. Bec aus e he as se rt s er ror i n t he t r i al court ’ s di scret i on by co m m i t t i ng hi m to T Y C , w e w i l l b r i efl y revi ew t he suf fi ci ency of t he evi dence supp ort i ng t he t r i al court ’ s fi n d i n g s under s e c ti o n 5 4 .0 4 (m )(1 ).10

C onsi der i ng C al vi n’ s best i nt erest s, t he t r i al court heard am pl e evi dence a b o u t C a l v i n ’s l a c k o f s tru c tu re a n d s u p e rv i s i o n a t h o m e , i n c l u d i n g h i s m o th e r’s t e s t i m on y t ha tCal vi n ra n a w a y from hom e i n O c t ob e r a nd Dec e m be r

o f 2007 and Cal vi n’ s t es t i m ony abo utnon- com pl i anc e ats cho ol , t hrow i ng pa rt i es , an d d ri n k i n g tw o b o ttles o f v o d k a o v e r tw o d a y s p ri o r to h i s d e te n ti o n . T h e c o u rt al so he ard a bouthi s hi st or y of refer ral s for t heft , as sa ul t , an d runni ng a w ay and al so hi s probati on vi ol at i ons i ncl udi ng fai l i ng t o reporti n January and h i s t hree o ffe n s e s i n J u l y . Se e I n re J . L . C. , N o. 02- 06- 00252 - CV , 2007 W L 1168 474, at*5 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 7, n o pet . ) ( m em . o p. ) (st at i ng t hatt he best i n te re s ts o f c h i l d re n w h o e n g a g e i n s e ri o u s a n d re p e a te d d e l i n q u e n t c o n d u c t a re s u p e rs e d e d to th e e x te n t th e y c o n fl i c t w i th p u b l i c s a fe ty ). Exam i ni ng t he reasonabl e ef fort s t o prevent C al vi n’ s rem oval from hom e, t h e t r ia l c o u rth e a rd e v id e n c e o f C a lv in ’s n e w e s tv io la t io n s o c c u r r in g s h o rt ly a ft e r h is c o m p le t io n o f

F P P a n d e v id e n c e o f t h e fa ile d a t t e m p t s t o e n ro ll C a lv in i n T ar rantC oun ty A dvocate P rog ram (“TC A P”) . The t r i al courtal so recei ved evi den ce t hatCal vi n’ s m ot her refus ed ot her

s er vi ce s an d di d notpursu e C al vi n’ s pres cr i pt i on drug t rea t m entw i t h hi s doc t or beca us e she di d not“ w ant to w a s te th e i r ti m e .” Th e t r i al courtheard am pl e evi dence t h a t C a l v i n coul d not have been provi ded t he care, support , and s uper vi si on requi red for hi s probati on w hi l e at11

h o m e . T h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a ti o n s ta te d th a t th e h o m e s tru c tu re is “c hao t i c, ” and Cal vi n de sc r i bed hi s hom e l i fe b y s ayi ng “t here i s al w ays s c re a m i n g a n d c l e a n i n g ” a n d h i s s i b l i n g s a re “ a l w a y s m a k i n g a m e s s .” C a l v i n ’s m ot her i s a s i ngl e p arent and gi ves C al vi n adu l tres pons i bi l i t i es , s uch as be i ng a care gi ver

t o hi s di sabl ed brot her and bei n g a “ fath e r fi gure” t o hi s ot her si bl i ngs . The so ci al hi st or y s t at ed t hathi s m ot her w as uns ucc es sful atus i ng w h a t s h e h a d l e a rn e d fro m F P P c o u n s e l o rs a n d C a l v i n ’s p ro b a ti o n o ffice r. Th oug h C al vi n’ s m ot her i s un em pl oyed and spend s t i m e athom e, she t est i fi ed t hatshe oft en m ustl eave C al vi n unsup er vi sed t o at t end do ct or ’ s vi si t s for her youn gestson’ s spi na bi fi da cond i t i on. C al vi n’ s m ot her st at ed t h atshe w as at t em pt i ng t o m ove t he fam i l y aw ay from Cal vi n’ s t roubl e- m ak i ng fr i end s, but w as notcu r rent l y abl e t o se cure hous i ng. There w as su f fi ci entev i den ce for

t he t r i al court ’ s deci si on t o com m i tC al vi n t o T Y C rat her t han t o p l a c e hi m i n an a l te rn a ti v e tre a tm e n t p ro g ra m . S e e In re D .W . , 02- 08- 00243 - CV , 2009 W L 1 8 1 5 7 7 9 , a t * 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t. h .) (m e m . o p .) (h o l d i n g th a t e v i d e n c e o f i m p ro p e r s u p e rv i s i o n a n d j u v e n i l e ’s n e e d fo r s tru c tu re suppo rt ed t r i al court ’ s act i on i n com m i t t i ng D . W . to T Y C rat her t han resi denti al p ro g ra m fo r j u v e n i l e s e x o ffe n d e rs ). F u rt h e r m o re , w it h re s p e c t t o C a lv in ’s a rg u m e n t t h a t t h e t r ia l c o u rts h o u ld have ordered furt her t est i ng, t he t r i al courtha d t he pow er t o order

a m ent al12

exa m i nat i on on i t s ow n m ot i on a tany s t age of t he j uve ni l e p roce edi ngs , but w as no t stat utori l y req ui red t o do s o . S e e I n re J . K . N. , 115 S. W . 3d 166, 168 –69 (

Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2003, no p et . ) ( hol di ng t hat t r i al cou rtw as not req ui red t o su a sp on t e o rde r ex am i na t i on of j uv en i l e’s m en t al st ate); In re E. M . R. , 5 5 S .W .3 d 7 1 2 , 7 1 9 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.) (sa m e ). T h e p s y c h o lo g ic a l e v a lu a t io n in t h e S t a t e ’s e x h ib its u g g e s t e d t h a tC a lv in w o u ld b e n e fitfro m a c o m p re h e n s iv e n e u ro lo g ic a l e v a lu a t io n ; h o w e v e r , a p o s s ib le di agno si s of neurol ogi cal i m pai r m ent w oul d not necessar i l y have al t ered t he t r i al court ’ s fi ndi ngs t hatcom m i tm e n t t o T Y C w as i n C al vi n’ s besti nt erest , t hat reasonabl e ef

fort s had been m ade t o prevent rem oval from hi s hom e, and t hat h e c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p ro v i d e d c a re a n d s u p p o rt i n h i s h o m e . S ee T e x . F a m. C ode A nn. § 5 4 . 05( m ) ( 1) ( A ) –(C ) . Fu rt her, t he t r i al co urt ’ s dec i si on di d not de ny C al vi n m en t al he al t h servi ce s w i t h hi s pl ac em en t at T Y C . S e e In re J. D . P. ,1 4 9 S .W .3 d 7 9 0 , 7 9 4 – 9 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.) (di sc us si ng e xt ens i ve ps ych i at r i c s er vi ce s t he j uve ni l e rec ei ve d at TY C ) . The t r i al co urtha d am pl e evi den ce of C al vi n’ s m i ss ed opport uni t i es for reha bi l i t at i on a n d h is c o n t in u e d t h re a tt o h i s c o m m u n ity t o s u p p o rtit s d e c is io n t o c o m m it C a lv i n to T Y C , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e i ts d i s c re ti o n . I n re M . A. C. , 99 9 S . W . 2d at44 6. Therefore, w e over r ul e C al vi n’ s fi rsti ssue.13

I V . I neffect i ve A ssi st ance of C oun sel I n hi s second i ssue, C al vi n argues t hath e recei ved i neffect i ve assi st ance of counsel because hi s at t or ney di d not i nvest i gat e C al vi n’ s pot ent i al n e u ro l o g i c a l c o n d i ti o n o r re q u e s t fu rth e r e v a l u a ti o n . A. A ppl i cabl e l aw A j uveni l e h as a const i t ut i onal an d st at ut or y r i ght t o ef

fect i ve assi st ance o f c o u n s e l i n a j u v e n i l e a dj u d i c a ti o n p ro c e e d i n g . Se e I n re S. C. , 229 S. W . 3d 83 7, 84 2– 43 (

Tex . A pp. — Tex ar kana 2 00 7, p e t. d eni ed) . To est abl i sh i nef fect i ve assi st ance of counsel , an appel l antm ustshow by a prepon derance of t he evi den ce t hathi s cou ns el ’ s repres ent at i on fel l be l ow t he st and ard of preva i l i ng profes si ona l nor m s and t hatt here i s a rea so nab l e p roba bi l i ty t hat , but fo r co u n s e l’s d e fi c i e n c y , th e res u l t of th e tr i a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i fferen t. St r i ck l and v. W as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 (1 9 8 4 ); S a l i n a s v . S tate , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 4 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); In re S .C ., 229 S .W .3 d a t 8 4 3 . U n d e r t h e fi rst St r i ck l and prong, w e l ook t o t he t ot al i t y of t he re p re s e n ta ti o n a n d th e p a rti c u l a r c i rc u m s ta n c e s o f e a c h c a s e . Thom ps on v . S tate , 9 S . W . 3d 80 8, 8 1 3 (T e x . C r i m . A pp. 19 99 ) . The i ssue i s w het her cou ns el ’ s as si st anc e w as rea so nab l e u nde r al l t he ci rcum st anc es an d preva i l i ng p ro fe s s i o n a l n o rm s a t th e ti m e o f th e a l l e g e d e r ro r. See St r i ck l and , 466 U. S.14

6 8 8 – 8 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t . a t 2 0 6 5 . R e v ie w o f c o u n s e l’s re p re s e n t a t io n is h ig h ly deferen ti a l , and t he revi ew i ng cou rti ndu l ges a st rong presum pt i on t hat cou ns el ’ s con duc tfel l w i t hi n a w i de rang e o f rea so nab l e repres ent at i on. S al i nas , 1 6 3 S .W .3 d a t 7 4 0 ; M a l l e t v. S tate , 6 5 S . W . 3 d 59 , 63 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). A rev i e w i n g co u rtw i l l rarel y b e i n a p o sit i o n o n d i rec t a p p e a l to fa i rl y e v a l u a te th e m e ri ts o f a n i n e ffe c ti v e a s s i s ta n c e c l a i m . Tho m pson , 9 S .W .3 d a t8 1 3 – 1 4 . “ In t h e m ajo r ity o f c a s e s , t h e re c o rd o n d ire c ta p p e a l is u n d e v e l o p e d a n d c a n n o t a d e q u a te l y re fl e c t th e m o ti v e s b e h i n d tri a l c o u n s e l ’s act i ons. ” S al i nas , 163 S. W . 3d at 740 (quot i ng M a l l e tt , 65 S . W . 3d a t63) . To ove rcom e t he pres um pt i on of rea so nab l e p rofes si ona l as si st ance, “ any al l ega t i on of

i nef fec t i ven ess m us tbe fi r m l y founde d i n t he rec ord, an d t he record m ustaf

fi r m at i vel y dem onst rat e t he al l eged i neffect i veness. ” Id . (quot i ng Thom ps on , 9 S .W .3 d at 8 1 3 ). I t i s n o t ap p ro p ria te for a n ap p e l l a te c o u rtto si m pl y i nfer

i nef fec t i ve as si st ance bas ed upon unc l ea r port i ons of

t he rec ord. M a ta v . S tate , 2 2 6 S .W .3 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e se c o n d p ron g o f St r i ck l and re q u i re s a s h o w i n g th a t c o u n s e l ’s e rro rs w e re s o se ri o u s th a t t h e y d e p ri v e d th e d e fen d a n t o f a fair tr i a l , i .e., a tri a l w i th a re l i a b l e re s u l t. S tri c k l a n d , 46 6 U . S . at68 7, 10 4 S . C t . at20 64 . I n ot her w ords , ap pel l antm us ts how t he re i s a rea so nab l e p roba bi l i ty t hat , butfor coun sel ’ s unprofessi onal er rors, t he resul t of t he proceedi ng w oul d have been5 ... Ci t i ng W i ggi ns v. Sm i t h , C a l v i n a rgu e s th a t co u n se l h a d a d u ty to

m ake reasonabl e i nvest i gat i ons or t o m ake a reasonabl e deci si on t hatm akes p a rt i c u l a r i n v e sti g a ti o n s u n n e c e ss a ry. 5 3 9 U .S . 5 1 0 , 5 2 1 – 2 2 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 2 5 2 7 , 2 5 3 5 (2 0 0 3 ). 15 d i ffe re n t. I d. at69 4, 10 4 S . C t . at20 68 . A re a so n abl e probab i l i ty i s a p ro b a b i l i ty s u fficie n t to u n d e rm i n e c o n fi d e n c e i n th e o u tc o m e . I d. T h e u l ti m a te fo c u s o f

o u r in q u ir y m u s tb e o n t h e fu n d a m e n t a l fa ir n e s s o f t h e p ro c e e d in g in w h i c h th e re s u l t i s b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d . I d. a t697, 104 S. Ct . a t2070 . B . A n a ly s is In th i s c a s e , C a l v i n a rg u e s t h a t h i s a tto rn e y fa i l e d t o i n v e s ti g a te C a l v i n ’s hea d i nj ur i es as pot ent i al m i t i gat i ng e vi den ce , de sp i t e h avi ng k now l edg e o f C al vi n’ s neu rol ogi ca l co nc er ns from D r . G al l agh er’ s ps ych ol ogi ca l ev al uat i on su bm i t t ed tw o w ee ks pr i or t o t he hea r i ng. 5 C al vi n argues t hathi s counsel sh oul d ha ve fol l ow ed t hrough on Dr . G al l agh er’ s rec om m end at i ons for neu rol ogi ca l t es t i ng a nd s houl d ha ve prepa red for t he q ue st i oni ng of

hi s ow n cl i entabout hi s neurol ogi cal st at us. C al vi n has present ed no evi dence rebutt i n g th e presum pt i on t hat c o u n s e l ’s fa i l u re to i n v e s ti g a te fu rth e r w a s tri a l s tra te g y . S e e J o n e s v . S tate , 17 0 S .W .3d 7 72 , 77 5– 76 ( Tex . A pp. — W aco 2 00 5, pet . ref’ d) ( hol di ng t hat ap pe l l antm us tde m ons t rat e t hatco uns el ’ s fai l ure t o requ es tj ur y i ns t r uct i on w as nott r i al st rat egy) . C al vi n’ s m ot i on for a new t r i al di d not di rect l y address16

hi s t r i al counsel ’ s i neffect i veness; rat her , t he m ot i on al l eged l egal and fact ual i ns uf fi ci enc y a nd m erel y de sc r i bed t he m ot her’ s as se rt i on of a brea kdo w n i n t he a tto rn e y -c l i e n t re l a ti o n s h i p . S e e M a rti n v . S ta te , No. 06- 08- 00190 - CR, 2009 W L 2 3 4 0 6 6 5 , a t* 4 ( T e x . A p p . — T e x a r k a n a J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t . h . ) ( me m. op. , notdesi gn a ted for publ i cat i on) ( hol di ng t hatappel l antfai l ed t o m ake an i n e f fe c t i v e c o u n s e l c o m p l a i n ti n h e r m o t i o n fo r

n e w t r i a l ; t h u s , t h e re w a s no re c o rd o f a h e a ri n g c o n d u c te d to e x p l a i n th e a c ts o r o m i s s i o n s o f tri a l c o u n s e l ); se e also C h a v a rr i v . S tate , Nos . 02- 08- 00099 - CR, 02- 08- 00100 - CR, 2009 W L 8 8 5 9 5 4 , a t * 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth A p ri l 2 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t. h .) (m e m . o p ., notdesi gna t ed for

publ i ca t i on) (st at i ng t hatt he app el l antfai l ed t o de vel op t he re c o rd b y fi l i n g a m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l to e s ta b l i s h w h y h i s c o u n s e l d i d n o t h i re a m i t i gat i on s pec i al i stan d w het her hi s cou ns el i nve st i gat ed t he pos si bi l i ty of any m i t i gat i on e vi den ce ) . Addi t i ona l l y, t he reco rd c ont ai ns no s t at em entor t es t i m ony from de fens e c ouns el rega rdi ng w hathe di d. W i t houta rec ord of w hy t r i al couns el fai l ed t o act , C al vi n canno tcar r y hi s burden t o ov ercom e t he p re s u m p ti o n th a t fa i l u re t o i n v e s ti g a te fu rth e r w a s tri a l s tra te g y . J o n e s , 170 S .W .3 d a t 7 7 5 – 7 6 ; se e also M a l d o n a d o v . S tate , No. 14- 03- 00074 - CR, 2004 W L 234377 , at*3 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] Fe b. 10, 2004 , pe t . ref’ d) (m e m . o p ., n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ) (sta ti n g th a t a re v i e w i n g c o u rt c a n n o t d e n o u n c e c o u n s e l a s in e ffe c ti v e a b s e n t s o m e e v i d e n c e o f h i s s tra te g y ).17

St r i ck l and d o e s n o t e s ta b l i s h th a t a n a tto rn e y m u s tin v e s ti g a te “ e v e ry c o n c e i v a b le lin e o f m i ti g a ti n g ev i d e n c e ,” b u t ne i th e r do e s i t es tab l i sh tha t a cursor y i nvest i gat i on i s suf fi ci entw here a reasonabl e at t or ney w oul d m ake fu rth e r i n q u i ry . See W i ggi ns , 539 U. S. a t528, 533, 123 S. Ct . a t2538 , 2541 . The t r i al rec ord onl y reve al s t hat evi den ce t hatCal vi n’ s pot ent i al brai n da m age w as of fered t o t he cou rtt hrough D r . G al l agh er’ s rec om m end at i ons i n t he p s y c h o lo g ic a l e v a lu a t io n a n d t h ro u g h q u e s t io n in g o f C a lv in h im s e lf

a b o u th is con cus si ons an d und erst and i ng of t he proce edi ngs . The rec ord doe s not af fi r m at i vel y s how hi s at t or ney ’ s i nef fec t i ven es s i n rega rds t o t hi s i nqui r y. C onsi der i ng evi dence of C al vi n’ s know n m edi cal condi t i ons, i ncl udi ng bi pol ar di so rde r , di srupt i ve beh avi or di so rder, an d de pres si on, hi s at t or ney m ay hav e not pursued t he neurol ogi cal te st i ng recom m endati on as a reasonabl e t r i al st ra t e gy b e c a us e Cal vi n’ s i m pu l s i ve “ a c t i ng o ut ” b e ha vi or c ou l d ha ve b een a ttri b u te d to a n y o r a l l o f h i s d i a g n o s e d c o n d i ti o n s . T h e re c o rd s h o w s C a l v i n ’s at t or ney el i ci t ed t es t i m ony from Cal vi n abo ut hi s con cus si ons an d di sc us se d t he p o te n ti a l b ra i n d a m a g e i n h i s c l o s i n g a rg u m e n t; w e c a n n o t i n fe r fro m th e re c o rd th a t th e a tto rn e y ’s tre a tm e n t o f th i s e v i d e n c e w a s u n re a s o n a b l e . S ee M at a, 226 S. W . 3d at432. Consi der i ng a l l of t he ci rcum st anc es i n t hi s ca se an d t he und evel oped record, C al vi n’ s at t or ney’ s deci si on t o not pursue neurol ogi cal te s ti n g fe l l w i th i n th e ra n g e o f re a s o n a b l e a n d p ro fe s s io n a l a s s i s ta n c e . S ee18

B o n e v . S tate , 7 7 S . W . 3d 828, 835 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2002 ) (ove r r ul i ng i nef fec t i ven es s cl ai m an d s t at i ng t hati tm us tnot b e bui l ton ret ros pec t i ve s p e c u l a ti o n , b u t m u s t b e f i rm l y fo u n d e d in th e re c o rd ); se e al so Sche ane t t e v . S tate , 14 4 S . W . 3d 50 3, 51 0 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 20 04 ) (concl udi ng t hati tm ust p re s u m e c o u n s e l a c te d p u rs u a n t to re a s o n a b l e tri a l s tra te g y b e c a u s e i t c o u ld o n l y s p e c u l a te a s to w h y c o u n s e l a c te d o r fa i l e d to a c t), cert . deni ed , 543 U. S. 1 0 5 9 (2 0 0 5 ). C a l v i n ’s i n e ffec ti v e n e ss clai m fai l s u n d e r t h e fi rst St r i ck l and prong ; t hus, w e d o notad dres s t he se con d prong. A cc ordi ngl y, w e o verr ul e Cal vi n’ s se con d i s s u e . V . C onc l us i on H avi ng ov er r ul ed bot h of Cal vi n’ s i ss ues , w e a f fi r m t he j udgm entof t he tr i a l co u rt . P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: G A RD N ER, M C C O Y, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Se pt e m be r 17, 2009