in the Matter of J.A.

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00598-CV
IN THE MATTER OF J.A.
From the County Court, Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16-05-00005 JVK
Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 4, 2019
AFFIRMED
J.A. appeals the juvenile court’s Second Order Modifying Disposition committing him to
the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for an indeterminate unspecified term not to exceed his 19th
birthday. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the juvenile court violated J.A.’s due
process rights by ordering him to TJJD without an updated psychological evaluation. J.A.
contends that by failing to order the updated psychological evaluation, the trial court refused to
consider the full range of punishment or determine his welfare and best interest. We affirm the
trial court’s order.
BACKGROUND
On May 26, 2016, the State filed a petition in the underlying cause alleging J.A., who was
twelve, engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offenses of aggravated robbery and
04-18-00598-CV
injury to the elderly with bodily injury on May 18, 2016. J.A. filed a stipulation of evidence,
admitting to having committed the offenses. The juvenile court adjudicated J.A. delinquent and,
on August 8, 2016, placed J.A. on probation for two years in the custody of his mother.
On January 13, 2017, the State filed its first petition to modify disposition alleging J.A.
was charged with the offense of assault on October 6, 2016, and failed to attend school on
numerous dates in September, October, November, and December of 2016. On February 10, 2017,
the trial court signed an order modifying J.A.’s disposition and placing him at the Hector Garza
Center, a placement facility.
J.A. was unsuccessfully discharged from the Hector Garza Center in December of 2017. 1
On January 5, 2018, the juvenile court signed an order releasing J.A. from detention to the custody
of his uncle. The order placed J.A. on full house arrest and required him to attend boot camp. The
order prohibited J.A. from leaving his uncle’s residence except to attend school or meet with his
juvenile probation officer or unless he was under his uncle’s direct supervision.
On April 10, 2018, the State filed its second petition to modify disposition alleging J.A.
failed to abide by the rules of the Hector Garza Center resulting in his unsuccessful discharge from
the facility and failed to attend school on January 18, 2018, and several dates in February and
March of 2018. On April 23, 2018, the juvenile court held a hearing at which J.A. pled true to the
allegations. The juvenile court found the allegations to be true and reset the remainder of the
modification and disposition hearing. On July 6, 2018, the juvenile court continued the hearing.
At the July 6, 2018 hearing, Melissa Padron, J.A.’s juvenile probation officer, testified J.A.
was placed with his uncle after he was discharged from the Hector Garza Center but was returned
1
The State’s second petition to modify alleges J.A. was discharged on or about December 14, 2017. A letter from the
facility dated December 14, 2017, requests that arrangements be made to discharge J.A. on or before December 26,
2017. The facility’s discharge summary shows J.A. was discharged on December 27, 2017.
-2-
04-18-00598-CV
to detention on May 30, 2018 for persistent misbehavior. Padron stated the decision to release
J.A. from detention and place him with this uncle followed a long hearing at which J.A. was told
this was his last shot. Padron testified regarding the services probation had offered to J.A. to date
which included: (1) referral to boot camp four times; (2) receipt of positive action curriculum four
times; (3) referral to ropes program four times; (4) referral to family preservation program eight
times; (5) referral to WhyTry program which teaches social and emotional principles to help at-
risk kids one time; (6) attendance at Too Good for Drugs curriculum twice; (7) placement at the
Hector Garza Center, a nonsecure residential placement facility, for ten months; and (8) MHMR
and special education services. Padron also testified J.A.’s prior referrals included: (1) burglary
of a habitation when J.A. was ten; (2) burglary of a building and expulsion from alternative school;
(3) running away; (4) aggravated robbery and injury to the elderly; and (5) assault and failure to
attend school. Copies of the December 14, 2017 discharge letter and the December 27, 2017
discharge summary from the Hector Garza Center were admitted into evidence.
The discharge letter noted J.A. refused to follow directives of staff and take his prescribed
medication, engaged in multiple incidents of physical aggression and assaultive behavior towards
his peers, and refused to accept how his behaviors will negatively impact his future. The discharge
summary noted J.A.’s “continuous problematic behaviors (aggression, assaultive behavior on
peer/staff, non-compliance, chronic deviance, gang related behaviors, refusing medical and
clinical treatment, engaging in theft) resulted in this unsuccessful discharge.” Padron testified the
reasons the facility discharged J.A. included minimal effort toward meaningful participation in
treatment. Padron stated J.A.’s participation in treatment and avoidance of physical aggression
and assaultive behavior would be required regardless of where he was placed in the juvenile
system. Padron also stated J.A. was continuing to refuse to take his medication for ADHD while
in detention. Padron testified the juvenile probation department was recommending placement at
-3-
04-18-00598-CV
TJJD, noting the department had tried supervision at home, numerous programs, and placement
outside the home; however, J.A. continued to engage in the same behaviors. Padron noted J.A.
not only assaulted his peers but also assaulted staff members at the Hector Garza Center requiring
him to frequently be restrained with physical holds. Padron further stated J.A. was repeatedly
counseled that he was a candidate for TJJD when he was released to his uncle’s custody in January
of 2018; however, he continued to make poor choices requiring his return to detention. Padron
emphasized if J.A. had followed the rules after his release to his uncle’s custody in January “we
wouldn’t be here today.”
When questioned about possible placement at a secure facility as opposed to a nonsecure
facility like the Hector Garza Center, Padron testified a secure facility would offer the same types
of programs and treatment the Hector Garza Center offered. Padron noted J.A. would still be
required to change the behaviors that led to his discharge from the nonsecure facility. With regard
to the difference between a secure facility and TJJD, Padron noted TJJD provides a more in-depth
assessment and has more options in terms of the type of placement that would address J.A.’s needs.
Padron explained the facilities have to be willing to accept the juvenile if the juvenile probation
department makes a referral whereas a facility has to accept a referral from TJJD and find programs
to help the juvenile. Padron further noted TJJD has after-care services and halfway housing that
assist juveniles in transitioning when released.
Padron testified she had reached out to three secure facilities. One did not respond. The
second responded J.A. was too aggressive for their program. The third tentatively accepted him
conditioned on the provision of an updated psychological evaluation. Pardon testified J.A. would
be required to follow the same placement rules he failed to follow at the Hector Garza Center.
On cross-examination, Padron testified residents progress through four levels at the Hector
Garza Center, and J.A. progressed to the third of the four levels but started regressing around the
-4-
04-18-00598-CV
time he was informed his mother was incarcerated. Padron agreed the instability of where J.A.
would be placed upon release could have affected him. Padron further testified J.A did not exhibit
the assaultive behavior at the boot camp he attended after he was released to his uncle’s custody,
and he progressed to a leadership position.
J.A.’s uncle testified if J.A. was released to his custody, he planned to move to Abilene
with his mother, J.A.’s grandmother, who had temporary custody of J.A.’s brothers and sisters
after their removal by CPS. J.A.’s grandmother was in the process of obtaining full custody of
J.A.’s siblings. On cross-examination, J.A.’s uncle conceded J.A. was placed back in detention
after previously being released to his custody. J.A.’s uncle also agreed everyone stressed to J.A.
that if he ended up back in detention he would likely be committed to TJJD. In response to the
juvenile court’s questioning, J.A.s’ uncle testified J.A. is not aggressive with his siblings. The
juvenile court then questioned J.A.’s uncle about J.A.’s prior referrals, noting J.A.’s first referral
when he was ten or eleven was the result of serious antisocial behaviors including “[b]reaking into
people’s houses, burglarizing people, urinating on people’s beds, [and] defecating on somebody’s
bed.” J.A.’s uncle stated he did not know anything about those behaviors. The juvenile court also
asked J.A.’s uncle whether he knew the elderly man J.A. was charged with injuring, noting the
man was ninety-one years old, and while the man was on the floor and reached to be helped up,
J.A. “push[ed] him down and [took] his wallet and [took] his money.” J.A.’s uncle responded that
the man was a neighbor’s father. The juvenile court told J.A.’s uncle it was “looking for a little
bit of honesty about how he actually behaves. And I find it hard to believe that someone who
could be so aggressive would be so meek and mild when it comes to his own family.” J.A.’s uncle
responded, “I have no way to answer that.”
During closing arguments, the juvenile court asked the State’s attorney whether its position
was that all placements for J.A. had been exhausted short of TJJD. The State’s attorney responded
-5-
04-18-00598-CV
“all placements similar to what he’s already been to” and stressed a secure facility would offer the
same services provided by the Hector Garza Center. In response to further questioning by the
juvenile court about what behaviors merited J.A. being committed to TJJD, the State’s attorney
responded J.A. refused to follow rules or change his behaviors and emphasized TJJD would give
J.A. “the most intensive rehabilitative services that are available in the state.” The State’s attorney
further noted “it would be up to him how long he stayed there.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court stated it had “carefully considered all
of the evidence presented” and “listened to all the recommendations of the attorneys, your attorney
and the attorney for the State.” The juvenile court then announced it was modifying the disposition
and ordering J.A. committed to the TJJD. After further discussion regarding J.A.’s right to appeal,
the juvenile court wished J.A. good luck, and J.A. responded, “F*** y’all.” J.A. appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A juvenile court has broad discretion to determine a suitable disposition for a juvenile
found to have engaged in delinquent conduct, particularly in proceedings involving modification.
See In re P.E.C., 211 S.W.3d 368, 370 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.); see also In re
J.P., 136 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2004) (holding trial court’s decision to modify juvenile’s
disposition is reviewed for abuse of discretion); In re E.K.G., 487 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 2016, no pet.) (explaining juvenile courts are vested with an even greater amount of
discretion when modifying disposition). A trial court abuses its discretion when it “acts
unreasonably or arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles.” In re E.K.G.,
487 S.W.3d at 673. “Absent an abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not disturb the juvenile
court’s disposition or modification of a disposition.” Id.
-6-
04-18-00598-CV
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer who considers the
entire range of punishment before imposing a sentence. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778,
786 (1973); Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Brumit v. State, 206
S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A trial court violates a defendant’s due process rights
when it arbitrarily refuses to consider the entire range of punishment or willfully imposes a
predetermined sentence. Grado, 445 S.W.3d at 739–40. Absent a clear showing of bias, we
presume the trial court acted in accordance with the defendant’s due process rights. See Brumit,
206 S.W.3d at 645. In Brumit, the court held that the presumption against bias was not overcome
when the record showed the trial court had heard extensive evidence before assessing punishment,
there was explicit evidence that the trial court considered the full range of punishment, and the
trial court did not make comments indicating consideration of less than the full range of
punishment. See Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645.
Here, the record also reflects the juvenile court heard extensive evidence before
determining J.A.’s disposition. Although J.A. contends the juvenile court should not have
modified his disposition without an updated psychological evaluation to determine if the secure
placement facility would accept him, Padron testified about her concerns with placing J.A. in a
secure facility and the advantages to placing him at TJJD. J.A. does not identify any statement or
action by the juvenile court that would support a finding that it failed to consider the full range of
punishment or ruled in a biased manner. Accordingly, J.A. failed to rebut the presumption that the
juvenile court acted properly. Furthermore, the juvenile court’s order expressly finds commitment
to TJJD is in J.A.’s best interest. For these reasons, we conclude the juvenile court acted within
its wide discretion in modifying J.A.’s disposition.
-7-
04-18-00598-CV
CONCLUSION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
Beth Watkins, Justice
-8-