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 order transferring him from the Texas 

Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to the 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 twenty-year determinate sentence, with the 

possibility of a transfer to TDCJ. Before A.A. turned nineteen, the trial court 

conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether A.A. should be transferred 

to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his sentence. Following the hearing, the trial 

1 The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Fourth Court of Appeals. See

Misc. Docket No. 23-9109 (Tex. Dec.5, 2023) (docket equalization order). Accordingly, we apply 

the Fourth Court of Appeals’ precedent to the extent required by Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 41.3. 
 –2– 

court ordered A.A. to be transferred. 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 appeals 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 pet.) (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 demonstrated that he reviewed the record and 

concluded the appeal was without merit and frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 

He states that in his professional opinion 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 professional 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 independently reviewed the record and 

counsel’s brief, and we agree the appeal 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 (Tex. 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 response 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., after consulting with counsel, 

desires to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file with the Texas 

Supreme Court “a petition for review that 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