in the Matter of M. M., Jr., a Juvenile

NUMBER 13-12-00545-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN THE MATTER OF M. M., JR., A JUVENILE
On appeal from the Juvenile Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
On June 20, 2011, the trial court, after conducting a hearing, found that
appellant, M.M. Jr., had engaged in delinquent conduct indicating a need for
supervision. The trial court placed M.M. on probation for a period of twelve months. On
May 15, 2012, the State filed a motion to modify disposition stating that M.M. had
violated various terms of his probation and requesting that the trial court revoke M.M.’s
probation. The trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion to modify disposition on
July 30, 2012. At the hearing, M.M. pleaded “true” to all of the alleged violations in
exchange for the State dropping a separate charge of burglary of a habitation against
him. M.M. stipulated to the evidence presented by the State. Based on M.M.’s plea of
“true” and the stipulations, the trial court found that the allegations in the State’s motion
to modify disposition had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial
court, after reviewing the State’s evidence, then placed M.M. in the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department’s care, custody, and control. M.M. filed a timely notice of appeal,
and as discussed below, his court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’s court-
appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that he “diligently
searched the Reporter’s Record and Clerk’s Record in [this case], researched the law
applicable to the facts and issues presented, if any, and it is [his] personal opinion that
no reversible error is reflected by the record.” In In re D.A.S., the Texas Supreme Court
held that the Anders procedure applies to juvenile appeals and noted that although
juvenile-delinquency proceedings are classified as civil, they are quasi-criminal in
nature. 973 S.W.2d 296, 298–99 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
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 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim.
2
App. [Panel Op.] 1978), M.M.’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling
authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has
informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable
grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to
withdraw on M.M.; and (3) informed M.M. of his right to review the record and to file a
pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see
also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time
has passed, and M.M. has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409.
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 have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have
found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by
indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed
the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement
of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no
reversible error in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
1
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, M.M.’s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas
1995, no pet.) (noting that “[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a
copy of this Court’s opinion and judgment to M.M. and to advise him of his right to file a
petition for further review.2 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 56.01(a) (West Supp. 2011);
see also TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte
Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
___________________
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the
9th day of May, 2013.
2
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should M.M. wish to seek further review of this case by
the Texas Supreme Court, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a pro se
petition for review.
4