AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed August 29, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-00071-CV IN THE MATTER OF A.A ., JR., A Juvenile On Appeal from the 451st Judicial District Court Kendall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22-001-JV

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Goldstein A.A., Jr. appeals the trial court’s or der transferring him from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to th e Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). 1 A.A. was adjudicated delinquent after entering a plea of true on one count of aggravated robbery and was given a tw enty-year determinate sentence, with the possibility of a transfer to TDCJ. Before A.A. turned nineteen, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing to dete rmine whether A.A. should be transferred to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his se ntence. Following the hearing, the trial

1 The Texas Supreme Court transferred this a ppeal from the Fourth Court of Appeals. See Misc. Docket No. 23-9109 (Tex. Dec.5, 2023) (docke t equalization order). Accordingly, we apply the Fourth Court of Appeals’ precedent to th e extent required by Texa s Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.3.–2– court ordered A.A. to be tran sferred. A.A.’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on A.A.’s behalf and his appointed appellate counsel has since filed a brief, stating that in his professional opinion the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Anders procedures are appropriate in appeal s from juvenile transfer hearings.
See In Re D.A.S ., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (Because Anders protects juveniles’ statutory right to counsel on appeal, we hold the procedures enumerated in Anders apply to juvenile appeals); Matter of C.S ., No. 05- 23-00951-CV, 2024 WL 2075841, at * 1 (Tex. App—Dallas May 9, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from juvenile transfer order); In re R.M., III , No. 13-09-00316-CV, 2010 WL 467414, at *1 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 11, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); In re T.H ., 2001 WL 246816, at * 1 (Tex. App—San Antonio Mar. 14, 2001, no pe t.) (same). An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Under the Anders procedure, if appointed counsel finds the appeal frivolous , counsel must file a brief explaining why the appeal lacks merit. Anders , 386 U.S. 744-45; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 407;
D.A.S ., 973 S.W.2d at 297.–3– We provided A.A. with a copy of the Anders brief and advised him of his right to examine the record and file his own response. 2 To date, A.A. has not requested the record nor has he filed a response. In his brief, A.A.’s counsel demonstrat ed that he reviewed the record and concluded the appeal was w ithout merit and frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. He states that in his professional opini on no arguable grounds for reversal exist and that any appeal would therefore lack merit. See id . Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a prof essional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id .; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 406–07. We have inde pendently reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agree the a ppeal is frivolous and without merit.Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. A courtappointed attorney’s duties to a client in a juvenile case continue through the filing of a petition for review, and a motion to withdraw may be premature unless good cause is shown. See Matter of T.M ., 583 S.W.3d 836, 838 (T ex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.) (extending In re P.M ., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) to Anders appeals in juvenile cases); Matter of K.A.E ., 647 S.W.3d 791, 792 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022, no pet.) (same); In re A.H ., 530 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (same). Counsel has not shown good cause for withdrawing

2 A.A.. is over the age of eighteen and able to file a pro se respons e in this appeal.–4– from his representation of A.A., and, as a result, his obligations have not been discharged. See T.M ., 583 S.W.3d at 838. If A.A., af ter consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, co unsel should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review th at satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.”
See P.M ., 520 S.W.3d at 27–28. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s request to withdraw. We affirm the trial court’s transfer order.

240071F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE MATTER OF A. A., JR., Appellant

No. 05-24-00071-CV On Appeal from the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22-001-JV. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Reichek and Garcia participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s transfer order is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered August 29, 2024