TDCAA Community
180 day deadline - mandatory interim supervision

This topic can be found at:

September 07, 2006, 15:05
180 day deadline - mandatory interim supervision
I'm not sure I'm going to ask this right, but bear with me and please try to read between the ignorance.
Our Juvi.Probation dept. has been supervising a juvi for another county (Interim Super.?) and the 180 day period is coming up wich I understand to mean that it becomes mandatory that we take it over for good. (correct me if I'm wrong).
We've not had one before and would like to see what, if any, forms someone else uses in a case such as this. What paperwork, if any, is needed - Order from Adj. court?
Also, if our stadnard terms of probation were to include something that the adjudication county doesn't, can we now include this or would we have to do a Modification? This Q about the terms is a hypo only - just curious.
September 07, 2006, 21:22
Stacey L. Brownlee
Don't worry this is new to all of us and I'm sure that reasonable minds will differ until we get some guidence from the courts.

IMHO, 51.073 requires the sending county to send the transfer order and the pertinent docs from the file. The receiving county should not have to do any paperwork for the "transfer" portion. The receiving county then must have a hearing and from the looks of the black letter of the law can set any reasonable conditions of probation, different or not. However, I can imagine situations that could occur with the setting of those new conditions that might not be equitable considering that the juvi probably had a plea deal in the sending county. Don't forget the juvi gets an attorney for the hearing in the receiving county !

[This message was edited by Stacey L. Brownlee on 09-07-06 at .]
September 08, 2006, 14:40
Thanks for the reply.
What would you suggest as far as having the juvi acknowledging any new or different terms of probation since ours are included in the order of adjudication??? I would assume a Motion to Mod would be in order if the juvi violates the terms of the transfering - ie drug use, but other than that, It sort of sounds like you just have the court take jud.notice of the trans. docs and then wait and see if the little darling messes up (sorry to sound so negative - get that way on friday after a morning of adjudications and then an afternoon of detentions.)
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason an attorney must be appointed at this (in instances where juvi hasnt been in any more trouble)hearing? Since its mandatory and all?
September 08, 2006, 15:16
Stacey L. Brownlee
I think you're on the right track. I would do a "new" order of probation, with all the sending counties rules and of course a new rule to report to the receiving county and whatever new rules you want.

Certainly if the little darling mess up you have the jurisdiction to file a MTM/MTR but from the looks of the statute I think you can do some fine tuning too. For instance, if you wanted him to report twice a week instead of once or if you wanted random drug tests instead of once a month...I can only forsee an issue if you wanted to add something like change his community service from 24 hours to 400 hours or add boot camp, something that would change the tone of the original plea agreement.

As far as the requirement for the attorney, I assume thats to protect him from the court/prosecutor adding something w/o due process. But frankly I have NO idea why this all got changed anyway, old system worked fine as far as I ever heard (and I get LOTS of questions/requests for help). Sharon Pruitt,Kris Moore, David Curl or someone with TJPC might have some idea about why it all got changed or the reasons behind some of the new rules, but I'm clueless.
September 08, 2006, 16:07
It is an unwieldy statute in some ways but it was the best that could be done with the differences in what the large-population counties and small-population counties wanted. As TJPC usually does, a workgroup was pulled together of mostly juvenile probation types. Another prosecutor from my office and I were the only prosecutors. The purpose of the legislation was to allow a county receiving a probation with conditions that might be different than the conditions they would impose to have a mechanism with which to return the juvenile to court to change those conditions. The main rubs came from juvenile from the city moving to rural county and the conditions of probation they brought from the city were not in line at all with what they would have imposed in the rural county, and vice versa with juvenile from rural county moving to the city. Of course, along with that simple intent came all the other issues you now experience. If you have specific questions, you can call me but it appears from Stacey's posts with advice you are on the right track.