in the Matter of S.C.N.F.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00683-CV
IN THE MATTER OF S.C.N.F.
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-JUV-00357
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: May 11, 2011
AFFIRMED
Appellant S.C.N.F. was adjudicated delinquent of misdemeanor assault-bodily injury and
placed on twelve months probation for her offense. In June 2009, the State filed a motion to
modify S.C.N.F.’s disposition after she violated the conditions of her probation. The trial court
extended S.C.N.F.’s probation following a plea of true in July 2009. After S.C.N.F. violated the
terms of her probation yet another time, the State filed a second motion to modify S.C.N.F.’s
disposition. S.C.N.F. subsequently pleaded true to violating the conditions of her probation, and
the trial court extended S.C.N.F.’s probation and placed her in the custody of the Chief Juvenile
Probation Officer for purposes of long-term residential placement. This appeal followed. We
affirm.
04-10-00683-CV
S.C.N.F.’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of
the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and concludes that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998)
(applying Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings); In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360-61
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (same). Counsel provided S.C.N.F. and her parents
with a copy of the brief and informed them of S.C.N.F.’s right to review the record and file her
own brief. See In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d at 360-61; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (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.). No pro se brief was filed.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant
appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
-2-