### NUM BER 13-09- 316- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

IN TH E M A

TT ER OF P.L.C ., III, A JU VEN ILE
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt of B ee Co un ty , T exas , Sitt ing as a Ju v en ile C ou rt.


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la This is an appeal f ro m an order trans ferr ing appell ant, P.L. C. , I II, to the I nst it uti onal Di v is ion of the Texa s Depar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce (“ TDC J- CI D” ) pur suant to sec ti on 54.11( i) of the Tex as Fami ly Cod e. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE
. A NN . § 54. 11(i) (Vernon Supp . 200 9). App ellant ’s appo inted coun sel has f iled a brief w ith t h is Court statin g tha t the app eal is
w ho l l y fr i v ol ou s a nd w i th ou t me r i t. W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND On Octo ber 2 , 2 0 07, app ellant plead ed true to allegation s that he en gaged in del inq uent condu ct— ind ecenc y w it h a c hil d. At a di spos it ion hear ing , app ell ant w as commi tted to t he T ex as Y outh Commi ss ion (“ TYC ”) f or a deter minat e s entenc e of fifteen y ears. He did no t app eal th at orde r. On April 17, 200 9, shortly bef ore appellan t’s nine tee nth birthd ay, the t ri a l c ourt hear d TY C’ s r eq uest for a t ransfer hear ing to deter mine w hether appel lan t s houl d be tr a n sf e rre d to T DCJ -I D. Ap p e lla n t h a d no t c o m p le te d hi s f if te e n -yea r se n te n ce an d T YC bel iev ed th at appell ant’ s conduc t w hil e at TYC i ndi cat ed th at he sh oul d be tr ansfer re d to TDC J- CI D. After an ev ide nti ar y hear ing , the tr ial co urt or der ed appe ll ant t o be tr ansfer re d to TD CJ -I D for c omplet ion of his fifteen- y ear se ntenc e. II. C OMP LI A NCE WI TH A NDE RS P u r s u a n t to An der

s v . C ali for nia , 386 U. S. 7 38, 7 44 ( 1967) , app ell ant' s c ourtappoi nted appel lat e c ounse l has filed a br ief w it h thi s C our t, sta ti ng that t her e ar e no
ar g uabl e g ro unds for r ev er sal

. See id. ; In re D .A.S ., 97 3 S .W .2 d 2 96, 2 98 ( Tex . 199 8) (o ri g . pr oceed ing ) (a ppl y ing pr ocedu re s e numer ated in Anders t o j uv eni le matter s a nd not ing that “[a]lth ough juvenile cases a re classif ied as civi l proceed ings, th e y are quasicr imi nal i n nat ur e.” ). C ounse l' s b ri ef dis cus ses r ele v ant po rt io n s o f the r ecor d as they per tai n to the s uff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce to s uppor t t he tr ansfer

. See In r

e Sc hul m an, 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 07 n. 9 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008) ( “I n Tex as, an And ers b r i e f n e e d not spec ific all y

adv ance ‘ar g uabl e’ poi nts of er ro r if co unsel finds no n e , b u t it must pr ov ide
re cor d r eferenc es to t he facts and pr ocedu ra l his tor y and set out per

tin e n t l eg al3

a u th o rit ie s. ”) (ci ti n g Hawk ins v. Sta te, 112 S.W .3d 340, 343- 44 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet .) ); Staf

for d v . St ate, 813 S.W .2d 503 , 510 n.3 T ex. C rim. App . 199 1). Includ ing r ecord ref eren ces to th e f acts and setting out pertin ent legal autho rities, appel lan t' s c ounse l has car efull y disc uss ed w hy , under cont ro ll ing auth or it y , t her e ar e no
er ro rs i n the tr ial co urt' s o rd er tr ansfer ri ng appel lan t f ro m t h e TY C to t he TDC J- ID

. See Hi gh v . St ate, 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex . C rim

. Ap p
. [P a nel Op. ] 197 8)

. Cou nsel has sta ted t o thi s Cou rt t h a t s he i s u nabl e to ra is e any ar g uabl e i ss ue for appeal and has forw ar ded a copy

of the br ief and her

req uest to w it hdr aw

as counsel to appel lan t. C ounse l als o pr ov ide d appel lan t w it h a c opy of the r ecor d and infor med appell ant o f his r ig ht t o
re v iew the re cor d and to file a pr o s e r espon se. See An ders, 386 U. S. a t 744 ; Staf for d, 813 S. W .2d a t 510 n.3; see als o In re Sc hul m an, 252 S.W .3d a t 409 n. 23. Mo re than an adeq uate per iod of ti me has passed, and appel lan t has not f il ed a pro se r espon se. See In r e Sc hul m an, 252 S.W .3d a t 409

.

III
. I NDEPE NDENT R EVI EW Up o n r e ceiv ing an And ers b r i e f, w e mu s t c o n d u c t a fu l l e x a mi n a t i o n o f al l the pr oceed ing s to deter mine w hether the cas e is w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pens on v

. O hio , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988)

. W e hav e r ev iew ed th e ent ir e r ecor d and couns el' s b ri ef and hav e found nothi ng that w oul d ar gua b ly s u p p ort an appeal

. See B led soe v. Stat e, 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 2 6
- 2 8 (Tex . Cr i m. A p p
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ D u e t o t h e n a t u r e o f And ers br iefs, by

i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n tha t i t c o n sid e re d the is sues r ais ed i n the br iefs and r ev iew ed th e r ecor d for
rev ersible error b ut f oun d non e, the co urt of a ppe als me t the requirem ent o f T exas Rule of Appel lat e Pr ocedu re 47.1 .” ); Staf for d, 813 S.W .2d a t 509 . Ac co rd ing ly , w e aff ir m the4

tr ansfer or der of the t ri al cour

t. IV. M OT I ON TO W IT H D R AW In ac cor dance w it h And ers, appel lan t' s a ttor ney has as ked thi s Cour

t f or per mis si on to w it hdr aw

as co unsel for a ppel lan t. Se e An de r s, 3 8 6 U .S . at 744; see a lso In re Schu lm an, 25 2 S. W .3 d at 40 8 n. 17 (cit in g Jef fer y v . St ate, 9 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 7 9 -8 0 (T e x. App .–Dallas 1 995 , no pe t.) (“If an atto rney believ es the app eal is f riv olou s, he m ust
w it hdr aw from r epr esent ing t he appe ll ant. T o w it hdr aw f ro m r epr esent ati on, t he appo int ed atto rney must f ile a mo tion to w ithdra w accom pan ied by a brief showi ng the ap pellat e cou rt that the a ppeal i s fr iv olo us. ”) ( ci tati ons omit ted)

. W e g ra nt c ounse l' s mot ion to w it hdr aw that w as car ri ed w it h the ca se. W it hin fiv e day s of t he date of t his Cou rt 's opi nio n, c ounse l is or der ed to se nd a copy of t he opi nio n and jud g ment to appel lan t and to adv is e appel lan t of his r ig ht t o fil e a p eti ti on for further r ev iew

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 56.01( a) ( Ver non Supp. 2009) ; see als o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 48.4 ( re q uir ing , i n c ri minal ca ses , t he at tor ney represe nting a def end ant on ap pea l to send the cli e n t a copy of the cou rt of

app eals’ opi nio n and jud g ment w it hin fiv e day s) ; see als o In re Sc hul m an, 252 S. W .3d a t 412 n. 35; Ex parte Owe ns, 206 S.W .3d 670 , 673 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06).

R O S E V E L A J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 11th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.