Opinion
06-23-00026-CV
10-25-2023
IN THE MATTER OF L.R.D., A JUVENILE
On Appeal from the 115th District Court Upshur County, Texas Trial Court No. J-11-22.
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
ORDER
The juvenile court found that L.R.D. engaged in delinquent conduct. After it found that L.R.D. had violated the terms of his probation, the juvenile court entered disposition orders committing L.R.D. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. L.R.D. appeals.
L.R.D.'s attorney filed an appellate brief in which she concluded, after a review of the record and the related law, that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief presents arguable points of error, but after a discussion of the applicable law and facts, counsel concluded that these points do not present reversible error. The brief, thus, meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (finding that Anders procedures apply in juvenile cases because such cases are "quasi-criminal in nature").
As required by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511, we have conducted our own investigation of the record to discover if there are arguable grounds for appeal. We have identified an arguable issue that requires additional briefing, namely whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over L.R.D. See In re C.S.G., No. 06-22-00006-CV, 2022 WL 4112733, at *1 (Tex. App.-Texarkana Sept. 9, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Section 53.06 of the Texas Family Code provides that a juvenile court 'shall direct issuance of a summons to . . . the child named in the petition,' among others, and also requires that '[a] copy of the petition must accompany the summons.'" (alteration in original) (quoting In re X.B., 369 S.W.3d 350, 352 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2012, no pet.))).
"When we identify issues that counsel on appeal should have addressed but did not, we need not be able to say with certainty that those issues have merit; we need only say that the issues warrant further development by counsel on appeal." Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 200 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2001, order). In such a situation, we "must then guarantee appellant's right to counsel by ensuring that another attorney is appointed to represent appellant on appeal." Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511 (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
Accordingly, we grant current counsel's motion to withdraw, and we abate this case to the trial court for the appointment of new appellate counsel. The appointment is to be made within ten days of the date of this order. New appellate counsel is to address the issue presented here, as well as any other issues that warrant further development on appeal.
A memorialization of the trial court's appointment shall be entered into the record of this case and presented to this Court in the form of a supplemental clerk's record within ten days of the date of appointment.
The current submission date of October 31, 2023, is hereby withdrawn. We will establish a new briefing schedule upon our receipt of the supplemental clerk's record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.