From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re J.R.

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Mar 23, 2020
No. 10-19-00215-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 23, 2020)

Opinion

No. 10-19-00215-CV

03-23-2020

IN THE MATTER OF J.R., A JUVENILE


From the 74th District Court McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-110-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant J.R. appeals from an order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to complete his sentence. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

J.R.'s appointed counsel has filed a first amended motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (original proceeding) (applying Anders to juvenile proceedings). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Shortly after receiving counsel's initial motion to withdraw, we issued an order, notifying counsel that the motion contained an error and ordering counsel to file an amended motion to withdraw correcting the issue within twenty-one days of the date of the order. Counsel promptly filed a first amended motion to withdraw correcting the issue.

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's first amended motion to withdraw from representation of J.R. is granted.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2020
[CV06]


Summaries of

In re J.R.

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Mar 23, 2020
No. 10-19-00215-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 23, 2020)
Case details for

In re J.R.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF J.R., A JUVENILE

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Mar 23, 2020

Citations

No. 10-19-00215-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 23, 2020)