Opinion
No. 09-06-081 CV.
Submitted on November 9, 2006.
Opinion Delivered March 22, 2007. Corrected March 30, 2007.
On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 05-06-05472-CV.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Carl Rayson suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes him likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence. The trial court committed Rayson to a program of outpatient treatment and supervision to protect the community.
After perfecting appeal, appointed counsel certified that the appeal is frivolous. The brief filed by appellate counsel presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and asks this Court to review this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998). On August 3, 2006, we granted leave to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Instead, Rayson has responded by presenting a motion for extension of time "to file petition for discretionary review." In this motion, Rayson acknowledges his awareness of appellate counsel's filing of an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and his awareness of the deadline for filing his pro se brief as set out in our August 3, 2006, order. He also acknowledges the fact that his pro se brief is past due, and he provides several reasons for his failure to file the brief. Rayson's motion does not reasonably explain his failure to file a brief as of the motion's October 31, 2006, filing date, and we have received nothing from him since. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. We decline to dismiss the appeal, and we also decline Rayson's request for further time to prosecute this appeal.
Other states employ an Anders procedure in appeals from involuntary commitment proceedings under sexually violent predator statutes. See Williams v. State, 889 So.2d 804 (Fla. 2004); In re McCoy, 602 S.E.2d 58 (S.C. 2004).
We have reviewed the record. The brief filed by Rayson's appellate counsel adequately presents the case, and additional briefing will not aid in the satisfactory submission of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b). We find no arguable error requiring further action in the case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.