Opinion
12-22-00251-CV
10-11-2023
IN THE MATTER OF B. B., A JUVENILE
Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3 of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 003-0048-21)
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
B.B. appeals the trial court's order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to complete the remainder of his twelve-year determinate sentence for delinquent conduct. B.B.'s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (holding that Anders procedures apply to juvenile matters).
Background
B.B. was charged by petition with delinquent conduct related to one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Smith County grand jury approved the petition allowing the State to seek a determinate sentence. A plea agreement was reached in which the State dropped the aggravated robbery charge, Appellant pleaded "true" to the aggravated assault charges, and the State recommended a twelve-year determinate sentence. The trial court imposed a determinate sentence of twelve years on August 12, 2021, in accordance with the agreement. B.B. did not appeal at that time.
On July 20, 2021, TJJD requested that B.B. be transferred to TDCJ. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered that B.B. be transferred to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his determinate sentence. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders V. California
B.B.'s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of counsel's brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have considered counsel's brief and conducted our own independent review of the appellate record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
B.B.'s counsel has certified that he provided B.B. with a copy of this brief. B.B. was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.
Conclusion
Appellant's counsel filed a motion to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion with the case for consideration on the merits. However, despite our having found no reversible error, we deny counsel's request to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016). The Texas Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights extends to "all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review." Id. at 27. After disposition by the Court of Appeals, an appeal in a juvenile matter is made to the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 56.01(a), (c)(2) (West 2022). Accordingly, applying In re P.M. to the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel has not yet discharged his obligation to Appellant. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. If, after consulting with counsel, Appellant wishes to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court "a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28; cf. A.C. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., No. 03-16-00543-CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.-Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). We affirm the trial court's judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).
Greg Neeley, Justice.
JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.