## NO. 12-08-00003-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ APPEAL F

ROM THE 145TH IN THE MATTER OF S.A., A JUVENILE § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF § NA CO GD OC

HES CO UN TY

, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM S.A., a juvenile, appeals f

rom an order modifying the dispositi on of her c ase and committing h er to the Te xas Youth Commissi on. S.A.’s counsel filed a brief in c ompliance with An ders v. Cal if or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and In r e D. A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proc eeding) . We a ffirm. B ACKG ROUND Procee dings in the juvenile court began when the State f iled a petition alleging that Appellant had enga ged in delinquent conduct or had engage d in conduct indicating a need for supervision. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 53.04(a) (Ve rnon 2002). The trial court a ppointed counsel for

S.A. After a hea ring, the trial court pla ced S.A. on pr obation. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 54.04(d)( 1) (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). The State filed a motion to modify the juvenile court’s dispositi on in this matter. Following a hea ring, the trial court expande d the conditions of S.A.’s probation to include a require ment that she attend a

program for adole scents. S.A. re fused to enroll in that pr ogram, a nd the State again filed a moti o n to modify the disposit ion. Foll owing a hea ring, the court committed S.A. to t he Te xas Youth Commi ssion. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 54.05(f) (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). This ap p eal followed.Cou n s e l f or S
. A. c e r t i f

i e d i n h i s mo t i on t o w i t h dr a w t h a t h e pr ov i de d S
. A. w i t h a c op y of t h i s br i e f

. S
. A. 1 was gi ven t i me t o f

i l e h er own br i ef

i n t hi s ca us e. T he t i me f or f i l i ng s uch a br i ef

ha s ex pi r ed, an d we h ave r ece i ved n o p ro se b rie f. 2

A N A LY SI S P URS UANT T O A N D ER S V . C A L IFO R N

IA Appellant’s c ounsel has filed a brief in c ompliance with Ande rs and D. A.S. Counsel states that he has diligently revie wed the a ppellate r ecor d and that he is we ll acquainted w ith the fac ts of this case. Counsel’s brief presents a thorough chronologica l summary of the proc edura l history of the ca se and f

urther stat es t h at counsel is unable to present any argua ble issues for a

ppeal. See Ga ino us v . St

ate , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)
. 1 We ha ve conside red counsel’s brief and have conducte d our own independe nt review of the rec ord. See Ande rs , 3 86 U. S. at 74 5, 87 S. Ct . at 14 00 ; see also Pe nso n v . O hio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct . 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). W e havefound no re versible e rror . See Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
. C ONCL US I ON As requir ed, Appe l l an t ’s counsel ha s moved for le ave to withdra w. See Sta ff or d v . St ate , 8 1 3 S. W
. 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( T e x . Crim
. A p p . 1 9 9 1 )
. H a v in g f o u n d n o r e v e r s ib le e rr o r , we aff irm the judgment of the juvenile c ourt and gr ant Appellant’s c ounsel’s motion for lea ve to withdraw
. Opinion delivere d J uly

9, 2008. P an elconsi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBL I SH)