In re Rodriguez

687 S.W.2d 421 (1985)

From our private database of 46,400+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Rodriguez

Texas Court of Appeals
687 S.W.2d 421 (1985)

Facts

Jerry R. Rodriguez (defendant) was a juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation for 12 months for making bomb threats to a junior high school. Rodriguez’s probation was conditioned on his observing a curfew that required him to be home by 7:00 p.m. each night except for Saturday and Sunday, when he was permitted to return home by 10:00 p.m. One day, Rodriguez violated his curfew, and a petition was filed to revoke his probation. A hearing was held at which a police officer, Officer Jim Truelove, who saw Rodriguez out after curfew, testified. A hearing was held on the petition, and a trial court determined that Rodriguez had violated his curfew, and the court modified the previous dispositional order by ordering Rodriguez committed to the Texas Youth Commission until he turned 18 years old. Rodriguez appealed. Rodriguez alleged that the court had abused its discretion in modifying its previous order for three reasons. First, Rodriguez asserted that there was no legally sufficient evidence that he had violated curfew because the only testimony regarding the curfew violation came from Officer Truelove, who testified that he saw Rodriguez outside a game room at exactly 11:04 p.m. based on police department logs, constituting hearsay. However, Officer Truelove also gave testimony that was not based on the dispatcher’s log that it was already dark when Truelove arrived at the game room and that he left the area at around 11:30 p.m. Second, Rodriguez argued that the court’s original disposition order was not a reasonable and lawful order, the violation of which permitted a court to commit a delinquent children to the Texas Youth Commission. Third, Rodriguez argued that there was no evidence that he did not have his probation officer’s authorization to be out past curfew or that he was not out with a relative, both of which were exceptions to his curfew. However, Rodriguez’s probation officer recommended that Rodriguez should be detained at a detention center for violating his curfew, and Officer Truelove testified to seeing Rodriguez alone.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Draughn, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,400 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership