COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF C.R.A., A JUVENILE § § § § No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 1 40

- C V

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
§ Of Denton County, Texas
§ (TC# JV

- 2014

- 00155 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, C.R.A. , appeals from an order requiring him to register as a sex offender. 1 We affirm. FACTUAL SUMMARY A ppellant was placed on juvenile probation for twenty

- four months in cause number JV

- 2013

- 00428

. D uring a counseling session, Appellant admitted that he had sexually assaulted

numerous children in his neighborhood, and he was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child (cause numbers JV

- 2014

- 00155 and JV

- 2014

- 00156) and indecency with a child (JV

- 2014

- 00157, JV

- 2014

- 00158, and JV

- 2014

- 00159). Appellant entered a plea of true in each case, and he was placed on juvenile probation until he reached the age of eighteen

. The specialized terms of probation required Appella nt to successfully complete sex offender treatment at a designated

1 Juvenile sex offender registration orders are appealable. T EX .C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 62.357 (West 200 6 ).- 2

-

facility

. Another term required him to register as a sex offender, but t he trial court entered an order deferring a ruling on sex offender registration. A fter being diagnosed with leukemi a , Appellant was discharged from the facility before he complete d sex offender treatment

. T he State timely filed a motion asking the court to order Appellant to register as a sex offender

. T he trial court conducted a Chapter 62 hearing to determine wheth er Appellant must register as a sex offender. The trial judge acknowledged Appellant’s unfortunate c ircumstances, but she concluded that her ruling had to take into account the interests of the public rather than sympathy for Appellant. The court entered an order requiring Appellant to register as a sex offender. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) , by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman , 2 52 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App . 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978)

. The requirements of Anders appl y to appeals from juvenile

- delinquency proceedings. In re D.A.S ., 973 S.W.2d 296, 298

- 99 (Tex. l998) (orig. proceeding). Counsel has notified the Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel ’ s brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the- 3

-

record, file a pro se brief , and to seek discretionary review

. Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

- 20 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014) (setting forth dutie s of counsel). Counsel also provided Appellant with a form motion for access to the appellate record. Appellant has not requested access to the record and he has not filed a pro se brief

. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief , and we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

November 30, 2016 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.