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 Anders ^{(footnote: 1)} brief in support of a motion to withdraw.  We grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

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Do not publish.

FOOTNOTES

1:

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).