Opinion filed Sep tember 2 4, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 00 60 -CV

____ ____ IN TH E MA TTER

OF S. C. , AJUV ENIL E

On App eal from the County Court at Law Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 5657

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N S.C. br ing s thi s a

pp e a l fr om an or de r of

the tr ia l c ourt

mod if y ingits pr ior

dis po sit ion

of his j u v e n i l e p r o c e e d i n g an d r e m an d i n g h i m t o t h e c u s t o dy o f t h e T e x a s Y o u t h C o m m i s s i o n( T Y C )

. In doing so, he prese nts two issues for our determination. In his first issue, he contends that the trial
c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y fi nd ing he ha d c omm itt e d a fe lony de se rv ingTY C se nte nc ing . In h is
se c on d is su e , h e argue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d its di scr e tio n b y

fa ili ngto a

pp ly a pp ro pr ia te prog ressive sa

nction g uidelines to h i m . Disag ree ing that reve rsible er ror is shown, we aff

irm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

. Factual Back ground Kr ist op he r G e or g e Ho ba

n, a Mid land County sh e ri ff ’s de pu ty , te sti fi e d th a t, i n th e e a rl y morning hours of Septembe r 30, 2007, he wa s driving home when he noticed anothe r vehic le behind him traveling at a speed that his c ar rada r unit indicated was 99 miles per hour. He was still ahead of the a pp ro a c hin g ve hic le , s o h e pu lle d o ff the hig hw ay

and wa ite d for

the oth e r v e hic le to p a ss h im.2

As he pu lle d o ut i n p ur su it o f t he ve hic le and

in atte mpt ingto s top the oth e r v e hic le , h e a c tiv a te d h is
e me rg e nc y

lig hts and

no tif ie d th e sh e ri ff

’s dis patc he r t

hat he wa s in

purs uit of the ve hic le . H e sa id that th e oth e r v e hic le inc re a se d it s sp e e d to a bo ut 1 10 mil e s p e r h our, fa ile d to m ake a tur n at a county road intersection, and hit a uti lity pole. The dr iver, late r dete rmined to be S.C., quickly g ot out of the vehic le and ran awa y throug h a very brushy

field. The of

fice r we nt throug h the aba ndoned
ve hic le a nd f

o u n d a t r a i l e r p ar

k a d dr e s s o f 2 6 0 3 S o u t h C o u n t y R o a d 1 2 2 3

- 1 / 2 , S p a c e N o . 2 in Midland. The off icer rela y ed this information by

radio, a nd two other Midland C o u nty sheriff ’s deputies proc eede d to the addre ss give n by him. One of the office rs noticed a Hispanic male in dark clothing r unning dow n the alley

behind the mobile homes and ente ring one of the m. The off icer s enter ed the mobile home whe re the y wer e dire cted towa

rd t h e b ac kbedroom in which the y dis c ov e re d S. C. s me lli ngof a lc oh ol a nd tr y ingto i g no re the m. S .C. wa s hand cuff e d a nd take n to the vehicle of one of the investigating office rs. He was then taken to D eputy Hoban and, ac cording to t he of fi c e r, a dmi tte d th a t he kn e w the of fi c e r w a s tr

y ingto s top him

. At the tim e of

thi s arr e st, S.C. wa s a lr e ady on juv e nil e pr ob a tio n a nd ha d b e e n e nr oll e d in a substance abuse outpatient prog ram called Top Rank Youth Prog ram. Be cause he only attended fiftee n out of the forty require d confe renc es for the full counselingprog ram, he had bee n discharg ed
o nt h e b a s i s o f

h i s n o n c o mp l i an c e . S

. C

. ’ s a s s i g n e d j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o no f

f i c e r w a s C l i n tG r e g o r

y. Gre g ory testified that S.C.’s probation ha d alre ady been e x tended one time and that, at the time of the incident we revie w here , he was unde r intensive super vision. During the period of his proba tion, S.C. ha d v iol a te d his curf e w, ha d be e n lat e in sc ho ol enro llm e nt, ha d fa ile d to pay pr ob a tio n f

e e s, and had f ailed to complete r equire d community service hours. He had also failed to re port on two
occa sions and had had a

public intox ication offense charg ed ag ainst him. S .C.’s biologica l mother te sti fi e d a bo ut t he dif fi c ult ie s in

g e tti ngS.C. e nr oll e d in

sc ho ol b e c a

us e of “ c re dit ” pr ob le ms. Discussion We reviewa trial c ourt’s m odification of a juvenile disposition under an a buse of discr etion standard. In re T.R.S. , 115 S.W .3d 318, 320 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Bec ause a trial court is in the best position to judge the c redibility and de m ea n o r of witnesses, g reat defe renc e should be g iven to t h e co u rt ’s decision. Gu zm an v . S tat e , 955 S.W .2d 85, 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 97 ); In re T.R.S. , 115 S.W .3d at 321. The violation of one co n d i t i on of probation when shown3

by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e is sufficie nt to support a trial court’ s d ec i s i o n to modify dispositi on. In re T.R.S. , 115 S.W .3d at 321. I n his first issue, S.C . challeng es the suff iciency o f t h e evidence to sustain the tria l court finding that he had vi o l at ed his juvenile probation by committing the fe lony

offe nse of e vading detention whil e usi ng a motor vehic le. A per son commits the offense of eva ding a rre st or detention if he int e nti on a lly

fl e e s f ro m a pe rs on he kn ow s is a

pe a c e of fi c e r atte mpt ingto a

rr e st o r d e ta in h im. T EX
. P EN A L C ODE ANN
. § 38.04(a) (Ve rnon 2003). I n his arg ument under this issue, S.C. recog nizes the rule that there does not have to be dir ect e vidence that he knew that a pea ce of

fice r wa s attempting to d etain him and that cir cumstantial evidenc e and r easona ble infer ence s from that evidenc e will suffice

. See Ha nk ins v. S ta te , 646 S.W .2d 191, 198-99 (Te x . Crim. App. 1983); W rig ht v . S tat e , 855 S.W .2d 110, 112 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1993, no pet.). I t is a lso we ll e sta

bli sh e d th a t a

pe rs on ’s int e nt a

nd kn ow le dg e c an b e inf

e rr e d f ro m hi s a c ts, words, and c onduct. Du es v . S tat e , 634 S.W .2d 304, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); see also Beltran v. Sta te , 593 S.W .2d 688, 689 (Te x . C ri m . App. 1980). In this case, S.C.’s knowledg e that De pu ty Ho ba n w a s a pea c e of

fi c e r co uld re a so na

bly be inf e rr e d f ro m te sti mony

that ( 1) the de pu ty purs ue d h im f

or so me dis tanc e a t a

hig h rate of sp e e d wi th his lig hts fl a sh ing ; (2 ) a ft e r c ra sh inghis vehicle into a utility

pole, S.C. jumped out of his ve hicle and ran a way ; (3) whe n S.C. saw another deputy and his patrol car outside his mobile home, he ra n into the home, jumped into his bed, and attempted to ac t as i f n o thing ha d happene d befor e; and ( 4) S.C. told t he deputy that he knew

the office r wa s try ing to stop him. Suffice it to say , this evidence was suff icient to justify

the trial cour

t in conclu d in g th a t S

. C. h a d c o mm itte d

th e o f f e n s e o f e v a d in g ar

r e s t o r d e te n ti o nw it

h a mo tor
ve hic le the re by

vio la tin gSe c tio n 3 8. 04 (a ). Th e re fo re , S.C.’ s fir st issu e do e s not re ve a l r e ve rs ibl e
err or, and it is overr

uled. I n h is s e c on d is su e , S. C. c on ten ds th e tr ial co ur t a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

fa ili ngto a

pp ly appropr iate prog ressive sa nction g uidelines to him. I n consideringthat contention, we note the pr ov isi on of our Fami ly Co de th a t a dis po sit ion

ba se d u po n a fi nd ingthat a

c hil d e ng a g e d in delinquent conduc t that violate d a penal law of felony g rade may be modified so as to commit the
c h i l d t o t h e T e x a s Y o u t h C o m m i s s i o n “ i f t h e c o u r t a f t e r a h e ar i n g t o m o d i f

y d i s p o s i t i o nf

i n d s b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the c hild violated a re asonable and lawf ul o rd er o f t h e cour

t.” T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN . § 54.05(f) (Ve rnon 2008).John T . B oy d, R et ire d Chi ef Just ic e, Cour

t of A ppea ls , 7th D is tri ct

of T ex as a t A

m ar ill o, s itt ing by

a ss ig nm ent

. 1 4 Th e tr ia l e vid e nc e he re re ve a le d that on No ve mbe r 16 , 20 06 , S.C. wa s fi rs t pla c e d on juv e nil e probation for

a per iod of one y ear

beca use he c ommitt ed the felony g rade offe nse of possession of
more than four ounces of

marihuana . Be cause of that, if S.C. had otherwise violated his probation, the trial court could have rema nded him to the TYC even if the State had f

ailed to establish the new fe lony e va din g c ha

rg e . Ajuv e nil e tr ia l c ourt ha s bro ad di scr e tio n in de te rm ini nga

su ita ble dispositi on of a c hild who has bee n adjudicate d to have e ng ag ed in delinquent conduc t. In re A.S. , 954 S.W .2d 855, 861 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997, no pet.). I n September 2007, S.C. admitted to violations of his i nitial probation, which led t o a oney ea r e x t en s i o no f t h at j u v en i l e p ro b at i o n . I nt h e c o u rs e o f t h at h ea ri n g, h e a d m i t t edt o t h e f o l l o wi n g: (1) positive urinaly ses for marihuana on two occa sions; (2) failing to f ollow curfe w re g ulations on
sever al occ asions; (3) fa iling to re port to his probation off icer on sever al dates; (4) failing to attend school on sever al dates; (5) failing to complete his requir ed community service hours; and (6) failing t o at t en d an d p ar t i ci p at e i n

s u b s t an ce ab u s e e v al u at i o nan d co u n s el i n g. Th e re c or d de mon str a te s that, fo r a co nti nu e d pe ri od of tim e , S.C. f a ile d to c omp ly

wi th h is
c on dit ion s o f j uv e nil e pr ob a tio n. Th e re c or d a lso de mon str a te s that th e se vio la tio ns oc c ur re d w hil e S.C. was livin g wi t h h i s mother and w ould justi fy the trial cour

t in concluding that she wa s not
c a pa ble of pr ov idi ngpr op e r c are , s up po rt , a nd su pe rv isi on of S.C. I n sum, both the felony

offe nse with which S

. C

. wa s char g ed and his history of re peate d violations while on juvenile probation amply justify the t rial court’s decision to rema nd S.C. t o the Te xas Y ou th C omm iss ion . A c c or din g ly , w e mus t, a nd do he re by , o ve rr

ule bo th o f S .C. ’s iss ue s. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

J OHN T. B OYD

SEN I OR JUSTI CE
September 24, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

B o y d , S

. J. 1