In the Matter of C.N. v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •              In the
    Court of Appeals
    Second Appellate District of Texas
    at Fort Worth
    ___________________________
    No. 02-22-00488-CV
    ___________________________
    IN THE MATTER OF C.N.
    On Appeal from the 323rd District Court
    Tarrant County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 323-114125-20
    Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    C.N. appeals from an order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile Justice
    Department’s (TJJD) custody to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal
    Justice (TDCJ) to complete his determinate sentence.         See 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.11
    . We affirm.
    The trial court initially adjudicated C.N. guilty of delinquent conduct after
    finding that C.N. had committed an aggravated robbery when he was 16 years old. See
    
    id.
     §§ 53.045(a)(7), 54.03. C.N. and two others had entered a home at night; C.N.,
    who was carrying an AR-15, searched the home for items to steal while one of the
    others pointed a handgun at one of the two victims and threatened to shoot her. C.N.
    was, at the time, on community supervision for engaging in delinquent conduct by
    committing unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. After the trial court adjudicated
    C.N. guilty of delinquent conduct, it sentenced him to an eight-year determinate
    sentence in TJJD custody. See id. § 54.04(d)(3).
    Before C.N.’s 19th birthday, TJJD requested a hearing to determine whether
    C.N. should be transferred to TDCJ or released to TDCJ parole. See 
    Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. §§ 244.014
    (a), 245.051(c)(2). After a hearing––at which TJJD records
    were introduced indicating that although C.N. did not fit TJJD’s requirements for
    recommending TDCJ incarceration, he was nevertheless not a good candidate for
    parole––the trial court ordered C.N. transferred to TDCJ confinement. See 
    Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.11
    (i)(2), (k).
    2
    On appeal, C.N.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
    withdraw and a brief in which he asserts that after thoroughly reviewing the record, he
    has found “no errors warranting reversal that can be legitimately supported by the
    record.” Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    744–45, 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 1400 (1967). See In re D.A.S., 
    973 S.W.2d 296
    , 299 (Tex. 1998)
    (orig. proceeding) (applying Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings).
    Counsel provided a copy of the brief to C.N., informed C.N. of his right to
    review the record and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, and informed him
    of his right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court if this court
    were to affirm the trial court’s judgment. C.N. did not file a pro se response with this
    court. Additionally, the State declined to respond to the Anders brief.
    Because C.N.’s counsel filed an Anders brief, we must independently examine
    the record to decide whether counsel correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous.
    See Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After carefully
    reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find nothing in the record that might
    arguably support the appeal; thus, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
    See Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore
    affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    If C.N. wishes to seek further review of this case, he must either file a pro se
    petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court or retain an attorney to file a petition
    for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re D.J., No. 02-20-00386-CV, 
    2021 WL 3
    2586610, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also
    Tex. R. App. P. 53.2 (listing required contents of petition for review), 53.7(a)
    (providing that petition for review must be filed 45 days after the date of this court’s
    judgment or—if a timely motion for rehearing or a timely motion for en banc
    reconsideration is filed in this court—within 45 days of this court’s last ruling on such
    motions).
    /s/ Bonnie Sudderth
    Bonnie Sudderth
    Chief Justice
    Delivered: August 10, 2023
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-22-00488-CV

Filed Date: 8/10/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/14/2023