Matter of Rodriguez
1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 6623, 687 S.W.2d 421 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's finding that a juvenile has violated a condition of probation will be upheld if there is any legally sufficient evidence, including circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from it, to support the judgment. A probation condition, such as a curfew, is considered a reasonable and lawful order for a juvenile adjudicated as delinquent.
Facts:
- Jerry R. Rodriguez was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for making bomb threats to Alvin Junior High School.
- As a result, he was placed on twelve months of probation.
- A condition of his probation was a curfew requiring him to be at his home address from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on weeknights.
- The curfew had two exceptions: if Rodriguez obtained advance written permission from his probation officer, or if he was accompanied by a relative or guardian.
- Rodriguez signed the document listing the probation conditions.
- On Thursday, June 28, 1984, Officer Jim Truelove, who was on duty from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., observed Rodriguez outside Captain B's Gameroom.
- Officer Truelove testified that it was dark when he saw Rodriguez and that he left the area around 11:30 p.m.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 20, 1984, the trial court adjudicated Jerry R. Rodriguez a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation.
- The State later filed a petition to revoke Rodriguez's probation, alleging he had violated a curfew condition.
- After a hearing, the trial court found that Rodriguez had violated the curfew.
- The trial court entered an Order Modifying Disposition, revoking probation and committing Rodriguez to the Texas Youth Commission.
- Rodriguez, the appellant, appealed the modification order to the Court of Appeals of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence legally sufficient to support a trial court's modification of a juvenile's probation for a curfew violation when the primary testimony regarding the specific time of the violation is challenged as hearsay, but other circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that the violation occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Draughn, Justice.
Yes, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court's modification of probation. When reviewing for legal sufficiency, an appellate court considers only the evidence and inferences that support the trial court's judgment. Even if the officer's testimony about the exact time of 11:04 p.m. was hearsay from a police log, his other testimony provides sufficient circumstantial evidence. The officer's testimony that his shift was from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., that it was dark, and that he left the area around 11:30 p.m. all support the inference that he saw Rodriguez well after his 7:00 p.m. curfew. Furthermore, the curfew itself was a reasonable and lawful order of the court, and inferences from the record—such as the probation officer's recommendation for commitment and the officer's testimony of seeing Rodriguez alone—are sufficient to show the curfew's exceptions did not apply.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the deferential standard of review appellate courts apply to a trial court's factual findings in juvenile probation revocation cases. It clarifies that legally sufficient evidence is not limited to direct proof and that circumstantial evidence, along with the logical inferences drawn from it, can be enough to sustain a judgment. The case serves as a precedent for upholding probation violations even when some evidence is technically weak or challenged, so long as the totality of the remaining evidence supports the conclusion. It affirms that common conditions like curfews are presumptively reasonable for juvenile probationers.
