Opinion
06-22-00007-CV
09-30-2022
IN THE MATTER OF D.B., A JUVENILE
Submitted: September 29, 2022
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 5992-J
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Pursuant to a plea agreement, D.B. was adjudicated for delinquent conduct in exchange for being placed on probation. After he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, D.B. and the State agreed on the entry of a modified disposition order requiring D.B. to complete the Azelway Substance Abuse Program. As a result of his unsuccessful discharge from the program for "engaging in physical aggression with another youth," the State moved to revoke D.B.'s probation and prayed that he be committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD). D.B. pled true to the State's allegation in the revocation motion and, following another disposition hearing, was committed to the TJJD for an indeterminate period. D.B. appeals.
D.B.'s attorney has filed a brief stating that she has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the juvenile court proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (extending Anders to juvenile delinquency proceedings based, in part, on quasi-criminal nature of proceedings). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On August 11, 2022, counsel mailed to D.B. copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only D.B.'s signature. D.B. was informed of his rights to request and review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated August 11, this Court informed D.B. that his pro se motion for access to the appellate record was due on or before August 26. On September 8, this Court further informed D.B. that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on September 29. D.B. did not file a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, a pro se response to his counsel's Anders brief, or a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the juvenile court. See id.
Even so, though we find no reversible error, we deny counsel's request to withdraw. Instead, we call counsel's attention to the continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion of proceedings, which may include the filing of a petition for review. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam); In re J.S., No. 12-21-00214-CV, 2022 WL 3012447, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler July 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining why In re P.M. applies to an appeal from a juvenile disposition order); In re A.H., 530 S.W.3d 715, 716-17 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (explaining why Anders and In re P.M. apply to an appeal from an order committing a juvenile to the TJJD). If D.B. desires to pursue this matter in the Texas Supreme Court, counsel may fulfill her duty "by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief." See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28.
We affirm the juvenile court's order committing D.B. to the TJJD for an indeterminate period.