in the Matter of J.D.C

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 8, 2014
Docket04-14-00187-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in the Matter of J.D.C (in the Matter of J.D.C) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in the Matter of J.D.C, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00187-CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.D.C.

From the 436th District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012JUV01630 The Honorable Lisa Jarrett, Judge Presiding 1

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2014

AFFIRMED

The sole issue raised in this appeal is a challenge to the trial court’s order modifying

J.D.C.’s disposition by committing him to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). We

affirm the trial court’s order.

BACKGROUND

After he was adjudicated for committing the offense of assault on a public servant in

November of 2012, J.D.C. was placed on probation for one year in the care, custody, and control

of his mother. On August 12, 2013, J.D.C.’s disposition was modified by extending his probation

to his 18th birthday and placing him in the custody of the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer. On

1 Associate Judge Yvonne M. Gomez presided over the disposition hearing and recommended the order modifying disposition, which was signed and entered by the Honorable Lisa Jarrett. 04-14-00187-CV

February 28, 2014, the State filed another motion to modify, alleging J.D.C. violated the conditions

of his probation which required him to: (1) cooperate fully and obey all rules of the residential

treatment placement facility where he was placed; and (2) have no harmful or threatening contact

with any law enforcement officer. The trial court held a hearing on March 7, 2014, and thereafter

modified J.D.C.’s disposition and committed him to TJJD. In support of this disposition, the trial

court’s order stated the following specific reasons:

Child is in need of supervision and/or structured and/or therapeutic environment; Followed recommendation of State and Probation Department; Probation provided numerous services and child continues to break the law and/or violate term[s] and conditions of probation; Previous history of adjudications and failure to comply with probation conditions: Deferred Prosecution and Standard Probation, ELM/GPS, Intensive Clinical Services, Counseling through CHCS and Residential Placement (Cyndi Tayler Krier Juvenile Correctional Treatment Center); Child is in need of correctional environment; Child is danger to self or others; Child found delinquent in past and may commit new offense.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court’s order modifying a juvenile’s disposition under an abuse of

discretion standard. In re J.P., 136 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2004). “A court abuses its discretion

when it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, or without reference to any guiding rules or

principles.” In re P.E.C., 211 S.W.3d 358, 370 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.).

Because J.D.C. previously had been adjudicated for engaging in delinquent conduct that

was a felony, the guiding rules gave the trial court the discretion to modify his disposition to

commit him to TJJD if the trial court found that J.D.C. “had violated a reasonable and lawful order

of the court.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.05(f) (West 2014). “[A]n abuse of discretion does not

occur as long as some evidence of substantive and probative character exists to support the trial

court’s decision.” In re B.N.F., 120 S.W.3d 873, 877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). “An

abuse of discretion [also] does not occur where the trial court bases its decisions on conflicting

evidence.” Id. -2- 04-14-00187-CV

DISCUSSION

In his brief, J.D.C. does not challenge the trial court’s finding that he violated a reasonable

and lawful order of the court or contend that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying his

disposition. J.D.C.’s sole complaint is that the trial court should not have modified his disposition

to commit him to the TJJD. Instead of committing him to TJJD, J.D.C. contends the trial court

should have modified his disposition by placing him on probation in the custody of his mother

because a change in J.D.C.’s medication approximately two weeks before the modification hearing

had resulted in a positive change in his behavior.

Alfred Medellin, Jr. is a residential treatment officer at the Cyndi Taylor Krier Juvenile

Correctional Treatment Center, which is a long-term residential program facility for juveniles. On

October 22, 2013, J.D.C. became argumentative when Medellin ordered him to be seated after

J.D.C. had used the restroom. Medellin again ordered him to be seated or he would receive a

behavioral timeout. While Medellin moved away to lock the restroom, Medellin observed J.D.C.

approach another juvenile resident and begin assaulting him by pulling him to the ground and

punching him in the face. Medellin said the other juvenile resident did not do anything to provoke

the assault. Medellin ran across the room and attempted a one-person side body hug to remove

J.D.C. Once Medellin secured J.D.C., he called for another officer’s assistance. J.D.C. continued

to be combative, and another officer arrived and assisted Medellin in a two-person side body hug

to restrain J.D.C.

Anthony Ramirez was a residential treatment officer in the behavior control unit at the

Krier facility. The behavior control unit “is a seclusion area for the residents who have misbehaved

in the general population.” J.D.C. was sent to the behavior control unit on November 6, 2013.

Later that evening, J.D.C. covered his entire body with his blanket which is a violation of the rules

because the officers need to have “constant visual” of the resident to ensure the resident is not -3- 04-14-00187-CV

engaging in any type of self-harm. When J.D.C. refused to remove the blanket in response to

Ramirez’s orders, Ramirez’s supervisor gave Ramirez permission to physically remove the

blanket. When Ramirez removed the blanket, J.D.C. attempted to hit him. Ramirez attempted a

one-person standing body hug; however, J.D.C. continued to struggle, and they fell to the floor.

J.D.C. then hit Ramirez three times in his face with a closed fist. Another officer, Cecilio Colunga,

came to assist Ramirez, and they attempted a two-person standing body hug. J.D.C. continued to

be aggressive, striking and kicking the officers. Once Colunga was able to restrain J.D.C.’s right

hand on J.D.C.’s shoulder area, J.D.C. turned his head and bit Colunga’s hand.

Julio Ruelas was a detention officer with the Bexar County Juvenile Detention Center. On

February 2, 2014, Ruelas was working the behavior unit at the center which is used for residents

who do not follow directives and instructions or fight with other residents. J.D.C. began banging

the metal door to his room with his fist. Ruelas instructed J.D.C. to stop banging the door because

it incites the other residents. When J.D.C. did not stop, Ruelas continued to observe him for a few

minutes after which J.D.C. began banging the door with his head causing red marks on his face

which is considered self-harm. After two officers arrived to assist Ruelas, they opened the door

and tried to calm J.D.C. When J.D.C. put up his hands to strike one of the officers, two of the

officers attempted to place him in a two-person side body hug. As the officers were attempting to

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority v. Canyon Regional Water Authority
211 S.W.3d 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
in the Matter of J.P., a Juvenile
136 S.W.3d 629 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
in the Interest of B.N.F. and J.D.F., Jr., Children
120 S.W.3d 873 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in the Matter of J.D.C, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-jdc-texapp-2014.