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

NO. 03-04-00562- CV

In the Matte r of P. W.

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. J-22 ,025 , HO NORAB LE LEONARD RAY SAENZ , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant P.W. was adjudicate d delinquent in 2002 as a r esult of a s s au l t and thef t char g es. On April 26, 2004, at t he age of 14, P.W
. was ag ain found to have eng ag ed in delinquent conduct by assaulting a school e mploy ee a nd was plac ed on nine months of intensive super vision probation (I SP) at home in his mot her’ s custody
. On J une 21, 2004, afte r P.W
. pled true to violating the te rm s o f h is p ro batio n, the tr ia l c ourt mod if ie d P. W.’ s d isp os iti on

to a su sp e nd e d T e xas Y ou th Commi ssion (TYC) s en t en ce . T he trial c ourt offe red P.W. the opportunity to remain at home by
c omp lyingwi th a ll I SP c on ditio ns . On A ug us t 13 , 2 00 4, a ft e r m ult ipl e vio la tio ns of

the I SP conditions, P.W. w as committed to TYC. P.W
. appea ls this last order in two issues: ( 1) t h e t rial court a bused its discretion by

committing him to TYC; and (2) the disposit i o n h ea ri n g for the unde rl y ingof

fe ns e wa s c on du c te d p ri or to t he a dju dic a tio n h e a ri ngin v iol a tio n o f T e xas F a mil y Cod e se c tio n 5 4. 04 (a ). F or the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , w e a ff

ir m.2 DI SCU SSIO N TY C C om m it m e nt

I n his first issue, P.W . claims that the trial court abused its discretion by modify ing his dis po sit ion

to c omm itm e nt i n T YC . Juv e nil e c ourt s a re g ra nte d b ro a d p ow e rs a nd

dis c re tio n in gra n t ing modific ation order s. In re E.D

. , 1 2 7 S. W. 3 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 2

- 6 3 ( T e x. A p p . — A u s ti n 2 0 0 4 , no pet.). “ [A] dispositi on based on a finding that the child eng ag ed in delinquent conduc t that violates a pena l la w o f th is s tate o r o f th e U n it e d St a te s o f th e g r a d e o f f e lo n y , o r if th e r e qu ir e me nts of Sub se c tio n ( k) a re me t, of the g ra de of

mis de me a no r, may

be mod if ie d s o a s to c omm it the c hil d to [TYC] if the cour

t after a hear ing to modify dispositi on finds by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the child violated a r easona ble and law ful order

of the c o u rt
. ” Tex . Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05(f) (West Supp
. 2 0 0 4

- 0 5 )
. T h e c o u rt ma y mo d if y a d is p o s it io n b a s e d o n a mi s d e me a n o r “ if : ( 1 ) the child has bee n adjudicate d as havingeng ag ed in delinque n t conduct violating a pena l law of the g rad e o f felony

or misdemeanor

on at least one previous occ asion befor e the a djudication that promp t ed t he disposition that is being modified; and (2) the conduc t that was the ba sis of the adjudication that prompted the dispositi on that i s b ei n g m o d i fied oc curr ed af ter the date of the previo us adjudication.” Id. § 54.05(k). P.W., who had at lea st one previous misdemea nor adjudication for

assault, does not dispute that he wa s elig ible for c ommitm ent to TYC under se ction 54.05(k). When a juvenile cour t modifies a dispos ition, the controlling issue is whethe r the
rec ord shows that the court abused its discr etion in f inding, by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, a violation of a condition of probation. In re K.B. , 106 S.W .3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). We may reve rse a trial court’s modification of a dispositi on only upon a finding of cle ar3

abuse of discretion. In re E.D

. , 1 27 S.W. 3d a t 86 3. A j uv e nil e c ourt

a bu se s it s d isc re tio n w he n it acts arbitra

rily , unrea sonably , or without ref ere nce to g

uiding r ules and princ iples. Id. at 863 (c iting In re C.L. , 8 74 S.W. 2d

88 0, 88 4 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 94 , no wr it) ). Th e pa rt y c la imi nga n a

bu se has the burde n on appea l to show the trial court abused its discretion. J .R .W . v . S tat e , 879 S.W .2d 254, 257 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, no wr it).

P.W
. pled true to the alleg ation that he had failed to r eport to his probation off icer as require d by the t erms and conditions of hi s court-or dere d probation. This plea supporte d the cour t’s finding by

a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that P.W. had violated a lawf ul court orde r and that he was ther efor e elig ible for c ommitm ent to T YC under sections 54.05(f) and (k). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 54.05(f) , (k); In re K.B. , 106 S.W .3d at 915.

On June 21 , 200 4, a ft e r t

he c ourt fo un d th a t P. W. h a d v iol a te d th e te rm s o f h is probation, it proce eded to r ece ive evidence r eg ardingthe State’s re commendation for P.W .’s dispositi on. The c ourt hea rd testimony from P.W .’s probation off icer that P.W . had a history

of drug use and a g g ression and ha d been of fer ed numer ous re h ab i l i tation prog rams beg inning in 2001 or 2002 with litt le succe ss. P.W. had succ essfully completed only

one prog ram, a

n ang er ma

nag ement prog ram, duringa prior pr obation but refuse d to attend the same prog ram d u ri n g t h e cur rent p ro b at i o n . P
. W
. h adal s o fa i l edt o co mp l et e t wo o t h er an ger m an age m en t p ro gra m s an d , al t h o u gh P.W . sometimes attended c lasses at the A lternative L ear ning Ce nter, his violent be havior sca red the teac hers a nd students when he w as in class. Ba sed upon P.W .’s hi story of not responding to service s in the community , the J uvenile Just ice D epartment’s first re commendation for P.W .’s disposition modification was e nrollment in a reside ntial behaviora l t r e a tm e n t p r o g r a

m i n H o u ston. Comm itment to TYC was its seconda

ry rec ommendation.4 Ba sed on the De partment’s recommendations, the court offe red P.W
. the option of enter ing the residential pr og ram immediately or taking a suspende d TYC sentenc e duringwhich he would be on I SP. The c ourt made it c lear that if P.W . broke a ny of the I SP conditi ons, he would be
se nt t o T YC . P. W. and his mot he r se le c te d I SP, a nd on June 21 , 20 04 , the c ourt se nte nc e d P. W. to TYC, suspending the sentenc e and r elea s i n g P
. W. on I SP for three w eeks. O n J uly 12, 2004, the p a rti e s r e tu

r n e d to c o u rt f

o r th e c o n ti n u a ti o n o f P. W. ’ s d is p o s it io n h e a r in g . T h e c o u rt hea rd te sti mony fr om P .W. ’s pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r, P.W. ’s mot

he r, a nd P.W. P.W. ha d s ho wn so me improvement during the three we ek s b u t h ad also missed seve ral mandatory meeting s. His urine
an al y s es h adb ee n cl ea n fo r t h re e w ee k s b u tca m e b ac k p o s i t i v e f o r m ar i h u an a t h e d ay

o f t h e h ea ri n g. Con sid e ri ngthe e vid e nc e of P.W. ’s imp ro ve me nt in some a re a s and c on tin ue d fa ilure to c omp ly

in others, the c ourt g ave P.W. anoth er four weeks to prove that he could c omply with all of the conditions of his probation. The c ourt explained that it was P. W
. ’s re s ponsibili ty to follow the
c on dit ion s and

re ite rate d th a t if any c on dit ion wa s viol a te d, P.W. wo uld be se nt t o T YC . O n A ug us t 13, 2005, the court ag ain hear d testimony that P.W . had missed a mee ting with his probation off icer
on J uly 26, but ha d turned himself in later that day , and he had missed meeting s with his assigned mentor. F urther, unde r I SP conditi ons, P.W . was to not ify a tracking service whene ver he left the ho us e a nd wa s re qu ir e d to g e t pe rm iss ion to le ave the c ounty . T he tr a c kin g se rv ic e ha d b e e n una ble to find P.W . on five oc casions , an d , o n one occ asion, P.W . had lef t the county

without prior notification or per

mission. After these violations, P.W. was put i n d et en t i o n , wher e he r emained until the August 12 he aringat which he was sent to TYC.I n its most rec ent s ession, the l eg islature amended section 54.05 to require more e x tensive 1 fi n d i n gs b ef

o re a c h i l d

ca n b e p l ac edo u t s i d e t h e h o m e i n a m o d i fi ca t i o n h ea ri n g: (m) I f the c ourt place s the child on probation outside the c h i l d ’s h o m e or c omm its the c hil d to the Te xas Y ou th C omm iss ion , th e c ourt : (1 ) sh a ll i nc lud e in t

he c ourt ’s or de r a

de te rm inatio n th a t:

5 D e s p it e th e f

a c t th a t h e me t th e s tatuto r y r e qu ir e me n ts f

o r c o mm itme n t t o T Y C, P. W. argues that the c ourt ac ted ar bitrarily , unrea son ab l y , or without ref ere nce to guiding r

ules and principles by

committing him to TYC whe n alternative dispositi ons wer e available
. This arg ument is without m erit. I n a modification hearing , the cour t is not re q u i re d t o consider a lternative dispositi ons. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 54.05(f) , (k). F urther, a s discussed above , althoug h not require d to do so, the court conside red the alternative dispositi on sug g ested by the J uvenile Just ice De pa rtme nt a nd a llo we d P. W. to se le c t on e of the tw o r e c omm e nd e d disp os iti on s. I n r e a c hin g its f in a l d e c is io n to s e n d

P. W. to T Y C, th e c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th e e v id e n c e of i mpro v e me n t P
. W. de mon str a te d d

ur ingI SP, a s w e ll a s h is h ist or y of no t pa rt ic ipatin g in t

he re qu ir e d c omm

un ity pr og ra ms a nd his con tin

ue d in a bil ity to c omp ly

wi th a ll c on dit ion s o f p ro batio n. We c a nn ot h old th a t t h e juv e n il e c o u rt a

b u s e d it s d is c r e ti o n in

f in d in g th a t T Y C w a s a

s u it a b le d is p o s it io n f

o r P. W. See In re E.D

. , 127 S.W .3d at 862-63.

P.W . also appea ls to public policy . Citi ng the conc urre nce in In re J .P. , P.W . argues that juveniles should not be committed to TYC witho u t a fi n d i n g that such a disposition is in t he child’s best intere st. 136 S.W .3d 629, 634 (Tex. 2004) (Schneide r, J., concurring ). Howe ver, a fter stating its policy

pref ere nce, the concur

renc e conce ded that under the cur rent law , no such finding

1(A) it is i n the child’s best intere sts t o b e p lace d outside the child’s home; (B ) rea sonable e ffor

ts were made to prevent or eliminate the need f or the c hil d’ s r e mov a l f

ro m th e c hil d’ s h ome a nd to m a ke it p os sib le for the c hild to return home; and (C) the child, in the child’s home, c annot be pr ovided t h e quality of c a re a nd level of supp or

t and su pe rv isi on that th e c hil d n e e ds to meet the c onditions of probation. See Ac t of May 27 , 200 5, 79 th L e g ., R.S. , ch . 949 , § 54 .0 5, se c . 1 5, 20 05 Te x. Ge n. L a ws 94 9 ( to be codif ied as a n amendment to Te x . Fam. Code Ann. § 54.05).
6 is require d. Fur

ther, de spite t h e fa ct that no such finding was re quired, the tria l court found that
c omm itm e nt t o T YC wa s in P.W. ’s be st i nte re st. Th e Or de r o f C om mi tm ent to th e Te xas Y ou th Com mis sio n s ta te s: The Responde nt will not accept pa renta l supervision and h as demonstrated a disreg ard f

or all authorit y . The Responde nt, in the Respondent’s home, ca nnot be provided the qua lity of care and l evel of support and supervision that the Respondent needs to m e e t th e c on dit ion s o f p ro batio n. Al l r e a so na ble e ff or ts w e re ma de to preve nt or eliminate the ne ed for the Respondent’s r emoval fr om home and to make it possibl e for

the Respondent to re turn h o m e. T h e C ourt furthe r finds that the Respondent has be en remove d from his home and approve s the remova l. T he Court further finds that the local r esourc es o f t h i s Court are not a dequate to meet such ne e ds or a c c omp lis h th e ne c e ssa

ry pr ote c tio n o f t

he pu bli c . I t th e re fore appea

rs to the Court that the be

st i nte re st o f th e Re sp on de nt and of soc iet y

will be serve d by c o mm itti n g th e Re s p o n d e n t, [P
. W. ] to th e c a r e , c u s to dy , a n d c o n tr o l o f the Texas Youth Commi ssion. (Emphasis adde d.) We overrule appellant’ s first issue.The State a lso arg ues that the c ourt should apply the pre sumption of re gu l ar i t y t o the 2 documents and to the tria l c ourt’s judgme nt. The presumption of re g ularity is a judicial construc t that r e quir es a re vie wi ngc ourt , a bs e nt e vid e nc e of

imp ro pr ie ty , to ind

ulg e e ve ry

pr e su mpt ion

in favor of the re g ularity

of the p ro ce ed i n gs and documents in the lower cour t. Lig ht v . S tat e , 15 S.W .3d 104, 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Howeve r, the c ourt of cr iminal appeals noted that the court of a ppeals he ld that the pre sumption of reg ularity should not apply

to discretionar

yjuveniletransfe r proceeding s. Id. When the presumption does not apply , the cour t should evaluate a ll of the evidenc e without the pre sumption. Id. 7 Tim ing of t he Di spo sit ion He ar ing

I n his se cond issue, P.W. arg ues that the trial c ourt err ed by holding the disposition hear ing pr ior to the adjudication hearingin violation of Texas Family Code section 54.04(a ). Texas Family Code section 54.04(a ) provides that: “[t] he dis position hearing shall be sepa rate , distinct, and subsequent to the adjudication hear ing.” Tex. F am. Code Ann. § 54.04(a ) (West Supp. 2004-05). P.W . argues that the re cord shows that the first dispositi on hear ing and order took pla ce on A pril 24, 20 04 , p ri or

to t he a dju dic a tio n h e a ri nga nd or de r, wh ic h o c c ur

re d o n Apr il 2 6, 20 04 . P. W. b a se s h is
c la im on re c itatio ns of

the date of

the dis po sit ion

or de r a s Apr il 2 4 in

the fo llo wi ng : ( 1) c e rt a in S ta te pleading s, specific ally , the Orig inal Motion to Modify Disposition, and the F irst Amended Motion to Modify Disposition; (2 ) the Order Modi fying Probation Disposit ional Orde r Commi tment to the Texas Youth C o m m i s s i o n ; and (3) the trial cour t’s ref ere nce to the da

te April 24 as the date of dis po sit ion
. Ho we ve r, the Sta te c la ims that the re fe re nc e s to A pr il 2 4 a re e rr on e ou s a

nd the re su lt of cle rica l error
. To support its claim, the State points to ot her doc uments that list t he date of the 2 dispositi on hear ing a s April 26, including the (1) J udg ment of De linquency ; (2) Dispositional Order of Pr ob a tio n; ( 3) Te rm s and Con dit ion s of I nte ns ive Pr ob a tio n Pro g ra m; (4 ) d oc ke t sh e e t f

ro m Apr il 2 6 , wh i ch re fer s to both the adjudication of delinquenc y and the dispositional order; ( 5) P.W.’sMoreove r, April 24, 2004, wa s a Saturday
. 3 8 Request to Clerk for Pre paration of Clerk’s Record on Appea l, f iled September 9, 2004; a nd (6) the Reporter ’s Recor d from Apr il 26.

Ha vin g c a re fu lly

re vie we d th e e nti re re c or d, we c on c lud e that th e re c itatio ns of Ap ri l 24 are the re sult of cleric al or ty pog raphic al error. In particula r, the re porter’ s rec ord plainly shows that P.W
. appea

red befor e the cour

t on April 26 for both hea ring s and that the disposition hearing was “ separ ate, distinct, and subseque nt to the adjudication hea ring ,” as r equire d by

section 54.04(a ). 3 We overrule P.W .’s sec ond issue.
CO NC LU SION

Having overr

uled both of P .W.’s issues, we a ffirm the modification of the dispositi on committing P.W t o the Texas Youth Commi ssion.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: August 25, 2005