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 c ourt’s order transferring hi m from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas De partment of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). C.S. was adjudicated delinquent after enteri ng a plea of true on one count of capital murder and was given a 23-year determinat e sentence with a possible transfer to TDCJ. After C.S. committed numerous in fractions while in the custody of TJJD, TJJD requested an early tran sfer of C.S. to TDCJ. T JJD 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 transfe rred. C.S.’s court-appointe d counsel filed a notice of–2– appeal on C.S.’s behalf and ha s since filed a brief, stating that in his professional opinion the appeal is without merit a nd that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Anders procedures are appropriate in app eals 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 (T ex. 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 oblig ation 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 provid ed 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 re sponse. 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 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 409 n.23. We have inde pendently reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we agree the a ppeal is frivolous and without merit. In his brief, counsel requests that he be permitted to wit hdraw as appellate counsel; no separate mo tion was filed with the Court. A court-appointed attorney’s duties to a client in a juvenile case contin ue through the filing of a petition for review, and a motion to withdraw may be prem ature unless good cause is shown. See Matter of T.M ., 583 S.W.3d 836, 838 (Tex. A pp.—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 oblig ations have not been discharged. See T.M ., 583 S.W.3d at 838. Accordingly, we de ny 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