Opinion
Nos. 05-04-00538-CV, 05-04-00539-CV
Opinion issued October 28, 2005.
On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 366-70032-04, 366-70291-01.
Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, WRIGHT, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A.D. appeals the trial court's orders of disposition and the modification of disposition with commitment to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC). In cause no. 05-04-00539-CV, the State filed a petition alleging appellant engaged in delinquent conduct by committing burglary of a building. Appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time of the offense, pleaded true in front of a jury to the allegations in the petition. The jury found appellant had engaged in delinquent conduct, and the trial court placed appellant on probation for one year. The State filed three motions to modify the disposition. In regards to the first two motions, the trial court found that appellant had engaged in delinquent conduct by possessing drug paraphernalia, violating the curfew, and testing positive for marijuana. The trial court ordered appellant's probation extended. On the third motion, the trial court found appellant violated the conditions of his probation by possessing less than two ounces of marijuana and failing to identify himself to a police officer. The trial court granted the motion to modify and committed appellant to TYC for an indeterminate sentence not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. In cause no. 05-04-00538-CV, appellant pleaded true to allegations that he was a child engaged in delinquent conduct by commiting the offense of failure to identify. The trial court adjudicated appellant a child engaged in delinquent conduct and committed him to TYC for an indeterminate sentence not to exceed his twenty-first birthday.
Appellant's attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of the motion in which she concludes these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998) (holding the procedures announced in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) apply to juvenile appeals). The brief meets the requirements of Anders. The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and his guardian. We advised appellant and his guardian that they had a right to file a pro se response, but they did not file a pro se response.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.
We affirm the trial court's order of disposition with commitment to TYC in cause no. 05-04-00538-CV and the trial court's order modifying disposition with commitment to TYC in cause no. 05-04-00539-CV.