Evidence was sufficient to justify the exercise of
the trial court's discretion in modifying disposition.[In the Matter of J.M.](09-2-4)
On February 10, 2009, the Amarillo Court of Appeals
held that the trial court's decision to modify disposition was not arbitrary and
unreasonable and thus, did not amount to an abuse of discretion.
09-2-4. In the Matter of J.M., MEMORANDUM,
No. 07-08-0215-CV, 2009 WL 322895 (Tex.App.-Amarillo, 2/10/09)
Facts: On November 26, 2007, when J.M. was
sixteen, he entered pleas of true to two allegations: (1) on March 16, 2007, he
caused bodily injury to his mother, E.M., by pushing her with his hands; and (2)
on October 23, 2007, he intentionally obstructed a person whom he knew was a
peace officer from effecting his arrest by using force against the peace
officer. After a stipulation of evidence was admitted during the adjudication
phase of the hearing, the trial court found that J.M. had engaged in delinquent
conduct and was in need of supervision and rehabilitation. After the disposition
phase of the hearing, J.M. was placed on probation for a period of one year,
subject to certain terms and conditions, including a term that he commit no
offense against the laws of the State of Texas or any other state or of the
United States or penal ordinances of a subdivision.
On April 18, 2008, the State filed a petition to
modify J.M.'s disposition alleging that on March 17, 2008, he violated the terms
and conditions of probation by causing bodily injury to his mother, E.M., by
striking her with a closed hand. After receiving evidence at the modification
hearing, the trial court found that J.M. had violated the terms and conditions
as alleged by the State and it entered an order modifying J.M.'s juvenile
disposition. The court announced that by committing J.M. to the Garza County
Regional Juvenile Facility, a boot camp facility, it was not only protecting
him, but also the public.
By issues one and two, J.M. maintains the evidence is
legally and factually insufficient to show that he violated the terms and
conditions of probation by causing bodily injury to E.M. by striking her with a
closed hand. By issues three, four, five, six, and seven, J.M. contends the
evidence is legally and factually insufficient to show that reasonable efforts
were made to prevent his removal from the home, placement outside his home was
not in his best interest, and the trial court's decision was arbitrary and
unreasonable.
Held: Affirmed
Memorandum Opinion: The trial court's modification
order recites:
[t]he Court finds that it is in the best interest
of the child, [J.M.], to be placed outside his home; that all reasonable
efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the child's removal
from the home and to make it possible for the child to return to his home,
and the child, in the child's home, cannot be provided the quality of care
and the level of support and supervision that the child needs to meet the
conditions of probation.
When questioned during cross-examination what effort
had been made to prevent or eliminate J.M.'s removal from his home, juvenile
probation officer, Ken Brock, testified that J.M. was offered every program
available in Vernon. In fact, J.M. had previously participated in and completed
two separate counseling programs. Brock also testified that placement with other
relatives was considered but that J.M.'s mother claimed no other family members
would take him.
Brock testified at the adjudication and disposition
hearing that several years earlier, J.M. had assaulted a peace officer resulting
in a referral. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court expressed to
J.M. its concern for his lack of respect for authority and the fact you've
gotten in fights with police officers on two different occasions. At the
modification hearing, the court had sufficient evidence before it that J.M.'s
best interests would be served by committing him to the boot camp program at the
Garza County Regional Juvenile Facility.
Although the evidence established that J.M.'s mother
and sister were not afraid of him and that no other acts of violence occurred
following the March 17, 2008 episode resulting in the State's petition to modify
disposition, there was sufficient evidence to justify the exercise of the trial
court's discretion in modifying J.M.'s disposition.
Conclusion: We conclude the trial court's decision
was not arbitrary and unreasonable and thus, did not amount to an abuse of
discretion. Issues three, four, five, six, and seven are overruled. Having
overruled J.M.'s seven issues, the trial court's order modifying his disposition
is affirmed.