In the MATTER OF C.J.B., a Juvenile
463 S.W.3d 626
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Juvenile appellant C.J.B. pleaded true to two counts: misdemeanor (terroristic threat of a public servant) and felony (assault on a public servant); placed on probation with requirement to complete residential treatment at Hector Garza Center.
- While at the non-secure treatment center, staff reported repeated rule violations, verbal/physical aggression, threats (including sexual threats), self-harm, and refusal to participate in treatment beginning in June 2013.
- The State moved to revoke probation and sought commitment to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) after appellant failed to complete treatment; the trial court consolidated the proceedings and ordered commitment to TJJD for both charges.
- On appeal the State conceded two revocation grounds were improper: parental noncompliance (should be handled under Fam. Code ch. 61) and insufficient proof that appellant intentionally failed to pay probation fees (Stanfield standard).
- The sole remaining proper ground was failure to cooperate with court-ordered treatment; the appellate issue focused on sufficiency of evidence for that violation and whether the required statutory findings (best interest, reasonable efforts, inability to provide care at home) were supported and whether commitment was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper grounds for revocation | State: appellant’s failure to complete treatment, plus parental noncompliance and unpaid fees, justify revocation | C.J.B.: parental noncompliance and fee nonpayment cannot support revocation | Court: parental noncompliance and fee nonpayment were improper grounds; failure to complete treatment was a proper ground and supported revocation |
| Sufficiency of evidence of treatment noncompliance | State: testimonial evidence showed refusal to participate, violent incidents, threats, and rule violations | C.J.B.: challenges sufficiency for mandatory findings and argues abuse of discretion in disposition | Court: evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support finding appellant refused treatment |
| Statutory affirmative findings for TJJD commitment (best interest; reasonable efforts; inability to provide care at home) | State: testimony supported each required finding (dangerous behavior, prior treatment efforts, unstable home) | C.J.B.: record did not support those statutory findings and court should order less restrictive alternatives | Court: evidence supported all three statutory findings; trial court did not abuse discretion in committing to TJJD |
| Requirement to consider less-restrictive alternatives | C.J.B.: court should have ordered alternatives before TJJD commitment | State: court not required to exhaust alternatives in modification hearing | Court: not required to consider alternatives; commitment was within discretion given evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanfield v. State, 718 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (State must prove failure to pay fees was intentional to justify revocation)
- In re A.T.M., 281 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008) (two-step review: sufficiency of violation then abuse-of-discretion on disposition)
- In re M.A.S., 438 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (when prior disposition is based on a felony, court may commit to TJJD upon preponderance showing a violation)
- In re J.R.C., 236 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (TJJD is most severe juvenile detention; trial courts have broad discretion but commitment is for serious offenders)
- In re J.M., 287 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (statutory affirmative findings must be supported by record; mere recitation is insufficient)
- In re E.D., 127 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (appellate reversal for abuse of discretion is warranted if record does not support required findings)