in the Matter of M.E.R. ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • i          i      i                                                                  i      i      i
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    No. 04-09-00333-CV
    IN THE MATTER OF M.E.R.
    From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 2008-JUV-02165
    Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding
    Opinion by:       Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
    Sitting:          Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
    Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
    Rebecca Simmons, Justice
    Delivered and Filed: February 3, 2010
    AFFIRMED
    M.E.R. was found guilty of delinquent conduct based upon her possession of a controlled
    substance and failure to identify to a police officer and placed on probation. The State subsequently
    filed two motions to modify the disposition, alleging M.E.R. violated the conditions of her probation.
    M.E.R. pled true to the allegations in the first motion to modify and was continued on probation.
    M.E.R. also pled true to the allegations in the second motion to modify. The trial court, however,
    revoked M.E.R.’s probation following a hearing on the second motion to modify and ordered M.E.R.
    committed to the custody of the Texas Youth Commission.
    M.E.R.’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the
    record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes the
    04-09-00333-CV
    appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967). See In re D.A.S., 
    973 S.W.2d 296
    , 299 (Tex. 1998) (applying Anders in juvenile
    proceedings); In re A.L.H., 
    974 S.W.2d 359
    , 360-61 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (same).
    A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to M.E.R. and her mother, who were advised of
    appellant’s right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
    After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment
    of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See
    Nichols v. State, 
    954 S.W.2d 83
    , 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 
    924 S.W.2d 176
    , 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
    Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-09-00333-CV

Filed Date: 2/3/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015