## NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 002 61 - 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 T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.8(b).2 incar ceration at the Texas J uvenile 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. **A NDERS**  B RIEF Pursuant to And ers , 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 profession al 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 no ne, 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) noti fied S.T. that counsel has filed an Anders brief; (2) provided S.T. with a copy of the Anders brief; (3) informed S.T. o f h is rights to review the record to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review if this Court finds that the appeal is friv olous; 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 , 4363 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. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW 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 a nd 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 wi th 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. W e affirm the judgment of the trial court. JAIME TIJERINA , Justice Delivered and filed the 1 9 th day of December, 2019.