Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Jan. 28, 2005, the state filed an original petition alleging that P.E.C., a 14-year-old special education student, engaged in delinquent conduct by committing burglary of a habitation. An adjudication and disposition hearing was held February 17, 2005, at which P.E.C. pled true to two counts of burglary of a habitation pursuant to a plea bargain. P.E.C. was adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct and was placed in the custody of his parent under the supervision of the Bexar County Juvenile Probation Department for 12 months. On May 12, 2005, the state filed a motion to modify his disposition alleging that P.E.C. had violated condition No. 7 of his probation requiring him to adhere to a 7:00 p.m. curfew, condition No. 16 requiring him to attend school every day and follow all school rules, and condition No. 26 requiring him to pay restitution. At the June 2, 2005, hearing, P.E.C. pleaded true to the alleged violations of his probation pursuant to a plea bargain. The judge modified P.E.C.’s disposition by extending the term of his probation to 18 months from the date of the hearing, and requiring three months to be served under intensive supervision with electronic monitoring, along with other modified conditions. In September 2005, the state filed another motion to modify P.E.C.’s disposition alleging that he had committed several violations of his probation: 1. He failed to attend school and follow school rules on or about June 27 and 29, July 8, 12 and 13, 2005; 2. On or about July 14, 2005, he failed to participate in and cooperate fully with the 60-day electronic monitoring program; 3. On or about July 14, 2005, he failed to participate in and cooperate fully with his day treatment; and 4. On or about July 14, 2005, he failed to pay restitution in monthly payments as ordered. P.E.C. pled “not true” to each alleged violation and a contested modification hearing was held on Sept. 22, 2005. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge found that P.E.C. had committed each of the alleged violations of his probation. After a psychological evaluation was completed, a disposition hearing was held on Oct. 20, 2005, at which the judge entered orders adjudicating P.E.C. delinquent and modifying his disposition to commit him to TYC for an indeterminate period. The court found that it was in P.E.C.’s best interest to be placed outside the home, that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for removal from the home, that in the home he could not be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision needed to meet the conditions of probation, and that commitment to TYC was in his best interest. The court further found that the juvenile probation department had extended numerous programs to P.E.C., including day treatment, but that he had continued to violate the law. Finally, the court found that P.E.C.’s educational needs “are being met and will continue to be met” at the Texas Youth Commission. The written orders were signed on Oct. 26, 2005. P.E.C. timely appealed. HOLDING:Affirmed. At the disposition hearing, P.E.C. objected that he could not be committed to TYC without first being afforded his administrative rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because TYC commitment would change his educational placement. P.E.C.’s argument based on the IDEA is flawed. The authority of the juvenile court to modify P.E.C.’s disposition by removing him from probation and committing him to TYC is not limited by the IDEA. by its own terms, the “stay-put” provision of IDEA applies only to state or local school authorities during the administrative proceedings contemplated by the statute; it has no application to state court proceedings involving a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent. The proper avenue through which to challenge P.E.C.’s educational placement is by invoking the administrative procedures set forth in the IDEA, and by instituting a civil action in federal district court once the administrative remedies have been exhausted. 20 U.S.C.A. � 1415(f),(i). Moreover, P.E.C. would bear the burden of proving that his educational placement, or IEP, is inappropriate in such a proceeding. the State had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that P.E.C. violated a condition of his probation before he could be committed to TYC, but had no burden to disprove that P.E.C.’s violations were caused by his disability. P.E.C. asserts the defense of necessity excused his failure to comply with the probation condition which required him to wear an electronic monitor for 60 days. The gist of his argument is that the State’s failure to comply with the IDEA procedures before seeking to modify his disposition created “imminent harm,” and that he was justified in avoiding such harm by removing his ankle monitor and leaving the school campus before he could be taken into custody. P.E.C. did not testify at the modification hearing, and never admitted committing the alleged violation. no evidence was presented to raise the defense of necessity. Moreover, the defense of necessity cannot be claimed as justification for unlawfully avoiding legitimate police detention. OPINION:Speedlin, J.; L�pez, C.J., Marion and Speedlin, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.