AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 9, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00951-CV 

IN THE MATTER OF C.S., A JUVENILE 

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. JD-22-00194-W 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

C.S. appeals the trial court’s order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile 

Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). 

C.S. was adjudicated delinquent after entering a plea of true on one count of capital 

murder and was given a 23-year determinate sentence with a possible transfer to 

TDCJ. After C.S. committed numerous infractions while in the custody of TJJD, 

TJJD requested an early transfer of C.S. to TDCJ. TJJD stated that, although C.S. 

had not yet completed his sentence, C.J’s conduct indicated the welfare of the 

community required his transfer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court 

ordered C.S. to be transferred. C.S.’s court-appointed counsel filed a notice of 
 –2– 

appeal on C.S.’s behalf and 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 226, 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); 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.) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from 

juvenile transfer order). 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; 

D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d at 297. 

 Here, C.S.’s counsel provided C.S. with a copy of the Anders brief and 

advised him of his right to examine the record and file his own response.1

 This Court 

separately provided C.S. with a copy of the brief and notified him of his right to 

examine the record and file a response. C.S. has not responded. 

1

 C.S. is over the age of eighteen and able to represent himself in this appeal. 
 –3– 

In his brief, C.S.’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 409 n.23. We have independently reviewed the record and 

counsel’s brief, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

In his brief, counsel requests that he be permitted to withdraw as appellate 

counsel; no separate motion was filed with the Court. A court-appointed 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); 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 from his representation 

of C.S., and, as a result, his obligations have not been discharged. See T.M., 583 

S.W.3d at 838. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s request to withdraw. 

 
 –4– 

We affirm the trial court’s transfer order. 

230951F.P05 

 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE MATTER OF C.S., A 

JUVENILE 

No. 05-23-00951-CV 

 On Appeal from the 304th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. JD-22-00194-

W. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Reichek and 

Garcia participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered May 9, 2024