in the Matter of T. P. M. ( 2006 )

NO. 07-06-0047-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
JUNE 22, 2006
______________________________
IN THE MATTER OF T.P.M.
_________________________________
FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF HEMPHILL COUNTY;
NO. 133; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant T.P.M., a juvenile, appeals from a modified disposition order adjudging
he engaged in delinquent conduct and committing him to the Texas Youth Commission for
an indeterminate sentence not to exceed his 21st birthday. In presenting this appeal,
T.P.M.'s appointed counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in support of a motion to withdraw.
We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.
1
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has diligently reviewed the
record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967);
Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1984, no pet.). Thus, he
concludes the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813
(Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the juvenile court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a
copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is
without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of his right
to review the record and file a pro se response if he desired to do so. Appellant did not file
a response. Neither did the State favor us with a brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises several grounds that he believes could plausibly
support an appeal. We have reviewed these grounds and have also made an independent
review of the entire record to determine whether there are any other arguable grounds
which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102
L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005). We have
found no reversible grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the juvenile court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Don H. Reavis
Justice
Do not publish.
2