in the Matter of J.M.E.

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-19-00062-CV
IN THE MATTER OF J.M.E.
From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017JV3000176L2
Honorable Victor Villarreal, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2020
AFFIRMED
J.M.E. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the Texas Juvenile Justice
Department (TJJD) for an indeterminate term, not to exceed his nineteenth birthday. On appeal,
J.M.E. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion because less restrictive alternatives were
available and commitment to the TJJD violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We affirm the
juvenile court’s order.
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2017, the juvenile court signed an order finding that J.M.E. was a child
who engaged in delinquent conduct by committing a felony 3 offense of alien smuggling, a
violation of section 20.05 of the Texas Penal Code. The juvenile court placed J.M.E. on probation
for fifteen months, with the first four months on intensive supervision probation (“ISP”). He was
04-19-00062-CV
placed at the Judge Ricardo Garcia Regional Detention Center (“the Center”) and ordered to
complete certain services including “CAPS and SCAN counseling, SWK [Southwest Keys
Program] after completion of ISP, Cognitive Life Skills at YV [Youth Village].”
On May 30, 2018, J.M.E. was unsuccessfully discharged from the Center because he failed
to comply with its requirements. He was detained at the TJJD, but was later transferred to the
Webb County Jail after assaulting another juvenile. Since his transfer, he has not been released.
On January 12, 2019, the State filed a motion to modify disposition, alleging J.M.E. violated the
conditions of his probation because he was unsuccessfully discharged from the Center and failed
to complete any of the court-ordered services.
At the hearing on the State’s motion to modify, J.M.E. pled true to being unsuccessfully
discharged from the Center and failing to complete any of the court-ordered services. The juvenile
court also heard testimony from J.M.E.’s probation officer, Officer Pryscilla Castillo, who testified
J.M.E. was unsuccessfully discharged from the Center because he did not participate in counseling
sessions and initiated fights with other juveniles at the Center. She further testified that J.M.E.
could not be placed with his parents after his unsuccessful discharge because they did not provide
adequate supervision.
Officer Castillo also testified that J.M.E. had a history of delinquent conduct and substance
abuse. She stated that before his current probation, J.M.E. had been referred to the juvenile court
ten times and placed on probation twice for nonviolent offenses. She further testified he failed to
successfully complete his first probation because he reoffended, and his probation was extended
as a result. The record reflects he served that probation concurrently with his instant probation
until that case was closed in May of 2018 and he was unsuccessfully discharged from the Center.
Officer Castillo also testified that during his previous probations, J.M.E. tested positive multiple
-2-
04-19-00062-CV
times for THC and once for cocaine and benzodiazepines. His last drug test was November 6,
2017, and he tested positive for THC.
Regarding his behavior, Officer Castillo testified that while at the Webb County Jail,
J.M.E. was attending school, receiving good grades, attending CAPS counseling, and receiving
SCAN services. She explained that in contrast, while at the Center, he failed to comply with the
Center’s requirements even after he was given a second chance. She testified she believed it was
in J.M.E.’s best interest to be placed at the TJJD rather than a boot camp because even though he
may qualify for a boot camp, a structured facility like the TJJD would provide J.M.E. with all the
services he needed and the best opportunity to rehabilitate.
At the end of the hearing, the juvenile court found that J.M.E. had violated the terms of his
probation and ordered him committed to the TJJD. J.M.E. appeals.
ANALYSIS
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.
In re J.P., 136 S.W.3d 629, 633 (Tex. 2004); In re P.E.C., 211 S.W.3d 368, 370 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2006, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably
or without reference to guiding rules or principles. In re P.E.C., 211 S.W.3d at 370. Absent such
a showing of abuse of discretion, “we will not disturb the court’s modification of a juvenile’s
disposition.” Id.
Applicable Law
When a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent, the court may modify its disposition to
commit the juvenile to a TJJD facility if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
juvenile violated a reasonable and lawful condition of probation. TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN.
-3-
04-19-00062-CV
§ 54.05(f). A plea of true to a violation of probation is “analogous to a judicial confession that
justifies the court’s finding the violation was committed by a preponderance of the evidence.” In
re D.J.R.R., No. 04-13-00084-CV, 2013 WL 3874476, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 24,
2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting In re M.A.L., 995 S.W.2d 322, 324 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999,
no pet.)). A trial court is not required to exhaust all possible alternatives before sending a juvenile
to the TJJD. Id. at *2; In re J.A.M., No. 04-07-00489-CV, 2008 WL 723327, at *2 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio March 19, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Application
As a condition of probation, J.M.E. was ordered to complete “CAPS and SCAN
counseling, SWK [Southwest Keys Program] after completion of ISP, Cognitive Life Skills at YV
[Youth Village].” J.M.E. pled true to violating this condition of his probation. Based on J.M.E.’s
plea of true, the juvenile court was justified in modifying the disposition from probation to
confinement in a TJJD facility. See In re D.J.R.R., 2013 WL 3874476, at *1.
J.M.E. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion because less restrictive alternatives
were available, and because he was currently complying with the juvenile court’s order by
attending CAPS counseling and SCAN services at the Webb County Jail. However, the juvenile
court heard evidence that J.M.E. had a history of delinquent conduct—he had been on probation
once previously and failed to successfully complete that probation. As to his current probation,
Officer Castillo testified J.M.E. was unsuccessfully discharged even after he was given a second
chance to comply with the Center’s requirements. Officer Castillo also testified placement with
his parents or at a boot camp was not feasible, and instead a structured facility like the TJJD would
provide J.M.E. with an opportunity to rehabilitate because it offered a variety of services, including
behavioral, family counseling, anger management, responsibility, substance abuse, mental health,
and educational programs. Before making its determination to send J.M.E. to the TJJD, the
-4-
04-19-00062-CV
juvenile court noted that although boot camps offered some of these services, “no boot camp has
all of these services.” The record therefore reflects the juvenile court considered less restrictive
alternatives and agreed with Officer Castillo’s recommendation that J.M.E. should be committed
to the TJJD. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion and therefore overrule
J.M.E.’s first issue. See id. at *2; In re J.A.M., 2008 WL 723327, at *2.
Eighth Amendment
J.M.E. also argues the juvenile court violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment because his modified disposition is grossly disproportionate to the
offense for which he was placed on probation. However, J.M.E. did not preserve this complaint
for appellate review.
To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a defendant must present the trial court with
a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds for the ruling desired. TEX. R.
APP. P. 33.1(a). This preservation rule applies to a complaint that a sentence is grossly
disproportionate and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113,
120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding complaint of cruel and unusual punishment under Texas
Constitution was waived because defendant failed to object in trial court).
Here, J.M.E. did not raise his complaint about the constitutionality of his disposition in the
juvenile court when that court modified his disposition or in a motion for new trial. By failing to
make an objection in the juvenile court, J.M.E. forfeited his complaint on appeal. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 33.1(a); see also Rhoades, 934 S.W.2d at 120; In the Matter of P.D.W., No. 12-17-00197-CV,
2017 WL 6350143, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 13, 2017) (mem. op.) (holding appellant
forfeited his complaint that trial court violated his Eighth Amendment rights when it ordered him
committed to TJJD by failing to present it to the trial court). We therefore overrule J.M.E.’s final
issue.
-5-
04-19-00062-CV
CONCLUSION
Having overruled each of J.M.E.’s issues, we affirm the juvenile court’s order committing
J.M.E. to the TJJD.
Beth Watkins, Justice
-6-