|
|
|
|
Opinion filed June 8, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-04-00296-CV
__________
IN THE MATTER OF S.R.S.
On Appeal from the Juvenile Court
Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 3505-J
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, S.R.S., appeals from the trial court=s judgment modifying its earlier disposition and committing her to the Texas Youth Commission. We affirm.
Background Facts
Appellant was adjudicated for the felony offense of burglary of a habitation and the misdemeanor offense of assault. The trial court placed appellant on probation at Seaton Home in San Antonio, Texas, for a period of six to twelve months, subject to extensions not to exceed one year until she turned eighteen. Successful completion of the Seaton Home program was a condition of appellant=s probation. Appellant did not successfully complete the program because she was unable to abide by Seaton Home=s rules and regulations. The State moved to modify her probation. The trial court modified appellant=s probation by extending it for twelve to twenty-four months. Under the modified probation, appellant had to complete the resident-based intensive supervision/probation program at the Taylor County Juvenile Justice Center Post-Adjudication Facility.
Appellant successfully completed the resident-based program and was released. Appellant was still required to abide by her conditions of probation, which included obeying all applicable state, local, and federal laws.
Shortly after her release, appellant committed two new assaults. The State filed a motion to modify appellant=s probation alleging that she had intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to Machelle Bacerra and April Ann Maldonaldo. The court found that the State=s allegations were true and committed appellant to the Texas Youth Commission.
Issue on Appeal
Appellant alleges in a single issue that the trial court erred in committing her to the Texas Youth Commission because the State did not prove that she had two prior adjudications as required by Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.05(k) (Vernon Supp. 2005).
Standard of Review
We review the trial court=s modification of a juvenile disposition for an abuse of discretion. In re K.B., 106 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.CDallas 2003, no pet.). Under an abuse of discretion standard, we reverse only when the trial court has acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner. Id.
Modification of Juvenile Disposition
Appellant contends that Section 54.05(k) applies to this case and that, because she did not have two prior adjudications, it was error for the trial court to commit her to the Texas Youth Commission. We disagree.
Because she was on probation for a felony offense (burglary of a habitation), Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ' 54.05(f) (Vernon Supp. 2005) applies. This statute provides:
Except as provided by Subsection (j), a disposition based on a finding that the child engaged in delinquent conduct that violates a penal law of this state or the United States of the grade of felony or, if the requirements of Subsection (k) are met, of the grade of misdemeanor, may be modified so as to commit the child to the Texas Youth Commission if the court after a hearing to modify disposition finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child violated a reasonable and lawful order of the court.
Appellant=s original offense was felony burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (Vernon 2003). The State, therefore, was only required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated a reasonable and lawful order of the court. The State met this burden by proving that appellant committed two new assaults.
Even if appellant were correct that Section 54.05(k) applied, the trial court did not err because the State is no longer required to prove two prior adjudications. This provision was modified by the legislature in 2003. The statute formerly required two prior adjudications; but, effective September 1, 2003, the State need only prove one.[1] Appellant=s underlying burglary occurred on September 9, 2003. The amended statute, therefore, applies. Appellant=s issue is overruled.
Holding
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
RICK STRANGE
JUSTICE
June 8, 2006
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[1]Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 283, ' 21, 2003 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 283.