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

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-23-00187-CV
IN THE MATTER OF Z.C.
On Appeal from the 99th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019-760,554, Honorable Douglas H. Freitag, Presiding
October 6, 2023
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
ZC appeals from an order transferring him from the custody of the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department (TJJD) to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(TDCJ) to complete a determinate sentence. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.11. We
affirm.
The trial court initially adjudicated ZC of engaging in delinquent conduct, namely
murder. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.03(a)(1) (describing delinquent conduct); TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (describing offense of murder). According to the record, he
and another male were in the process of committing burglary when confronted by a
neighbor. ZC shot the neighbor. Thereafter, the trial court adjudicated him as engaging
in delinquent conduct, i.e., murder, assessed a determinate sentence of thirty years, and
placed him with the TJJD. Upon his turning 18, the State moved to transfer him to the
TDCJ, which motion the trial court granted upon hearing the evidence.
ZC appealed and his court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief with
an accompanying motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); see In re R.D.D., No. 07-22-00054-CV, 2022 Tex. App.
LEXIS 6526, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo August 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying
Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings). Through the former, counsel represented
that she thoroughly reviewed the record and found “no appealable issues.” So too did
counsel provide a copy of the brief, motion to withdraw, and record to ZC, while informing
him of his right to file a pro se response to them. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
318-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (setting forth duties of counsel). We notified both ZC and
his mother of the same right and set September 27, 2023, as the deadline by which to file
any response. None was received.
Per In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding),
we conducted our own independent examination of the record for arguable issues
supporting an appeal. It revealed none. Thus, we affirm the Order of Transfer to the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. However, no action is
taken on counsel’s motion to withdraw. Rather, counsel’s attention is called to the
continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion or termination of all proceedings,
which may include the filing of a petition for review. In re R.D.D., 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS
6526, at *2 n.2.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
2