NUMBER 13-19-00261-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF S.T., A JUVENILE 

On appeal from the County Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

S.T.1 pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance in an amount 

between four and four hundred grams, a second-degree felony, and the trial court placed 

him on community supervision pursuant to a plea agreement. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY 

CODE ANN. § 481.116(d). The State filed a motion to revoke, and S.T. pleaded true to the 

State’s allegations. The trial court adjudicated S.T. guilty and sentenced him to 

 1 To protect the identity of children, we refer to them by aliases. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b). 
2

incarceration at the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. S.T.’s court-appointed counsel 

has filed an Anders brief stating there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders, S.T.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief 

stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can 

be predicated. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents 

a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance 

on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 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.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 

510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), S.T.’s 

counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing, that counsel has: 

(1) notified S.T. that counsel has filed an Anders brief; (2) provided S.T. with a copy of 

the Anders brief; (3) informed S.T. of his rights to review the record to file a pro se 

response and to seek discretionary review if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous;

and (4) provided S.T. with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with 

instructions to file the motion in this Court. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 
3

S.W.3d at 319; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409 n.23. An adequate amount of time has passed, and S.T. has not filed a pro se 

response. 

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). We may determine the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion 

after reviewing the record and finding no reversible error. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Alternatively, if we determine that arguable grounds 

for appeal exist, we must remand for the appointment of new counsel to brief those issues. 

Id. at 827.

We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate 

counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner v. 

State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. We 

agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review,

and the appeal is frivolous. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. 

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

JAIME TIJERINA,

Justice

Delivered and filed the

19th day of December, 2019.