in the Matter of S.T., a Juvenile ( 2019 )

NUMBER 13-19-00261-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN THE MATTER OF S.T., A JUVENILE
On appeal from the County Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina
S.T. 1 pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance in an amount
between four and four hundred grams, a second-degree felony, and the trial court placed
him on community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. § 481.116(d). The State filed a motion to revoke, and S.T. pleaded true to the
State’s allegations. The trial court adjudicated S.T. guilty and sentenced him to
1 To protect the identity of children, we refer to them by aliases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b).
incarceration at the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. S.T.’s court-appointed counsel
has filed an Anders brief stating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders, S.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can
be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents
a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance
on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In
Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel
finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and
set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), S.T.’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that counsel has:
(1) notified S.T. that counsel has filed an Anders brief; (2) provided S.T. with a copy of
the Anders brief; (3) informed S.T. of his rights to review the record to file a pro se
response and to seek discretionary review if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous;
and (4) provided S.T. with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with
instructions to file the motion in this Court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436
2
S.W.3d at 319; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409 n.23. An adequate amount of time has passed, and S.T. has not filed a pro se
response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We may determine the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion
after reviewing the record and finding no reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Alternatively, if we determine that arguable grounds
for appeal exist, we must remand for the appointment of new counsel to brief those issues.
Id. at 827.
We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate
counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner v.
State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. We
agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review,
and the appeal is frivolous. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JAIME TIJERINA,
Justice
Delivered and filed the
19th day of December, 2019.
3