From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In Matter of E. D. D.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jan 15, 2003
No. 04-02-00297-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 15, 2003)

Opinion

No. 04-02-00297-CV.

Delivered and Filed: January 15, 2003.

Appeal from the 317th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Court No. 8895-J, Honorable Larry Thorne, Judge Presiding.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED.

Sitting: Alma L. LOPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Paul W. GREEN, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


E.D.D. was found guilty of delinquent conduct based on possession of cocaine and placed on probation. The State subsequently moved to modify the disposition, alleging E.D.D. violated the conditions of his probation by theft, evading arrest, and failing his drug screens. E.D.D. pled true to the allegations. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked E.D.D.'s probation and ordered him committed to the custody of the Texas Youth Commission. E.D.D.'s court-appointed attorney on appeal filed a brief in which counsel concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw.

In the future, counsel should conform his motion to withdraw to the requirements of Tex.R.App.P. 6.5, including, in juvenile cases, the names and current addresses of both the juvenile and his or her guardian.

Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Specifically, counsel provided E.D.D. and his guardian with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and further informed them of E.D.D.'s right to review the record and file his own brief if he wished. In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998); In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360-61 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.). E.D.D. has not done so.

Counsel also detailed the procedure for obtaining the record. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel's certification actually states that he provided "appellant," rather than appellant and guardian, with a copy of the brief and further admonitions on E.D.D.'s right to file a pro se brief. However, counsel's letter setting out E.D.D.'s rights is addressed to both E.D.D. and his guardian. Therefore, we are satisfied both E.D.D. and his guardian received proper notice.

We reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by E.D.D.'s counsel. See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).


Summaries of

In Matter of E. D. D.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Jan 15, 2003
No. 04-02-00297-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 15, 2003)
Case details for

In Matter of E. D. D.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF E. D. D., Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Jan 15, 2003

Citations

No. 04-02-00297-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 15, 2003)