### NUM BER 13-08- 0061 6-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 THE M A

TTER OF R .M ., II I, A

CHILD
On ap pe al f rom th e 4 49t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nt y , 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 Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez In 20 03, a t the ag e of si x teen, appel lan t, R. M. , I II, dr ov e a v ehi cl e tha t w as inv olv ed in a ga n g- re la t e d sh o o t in g. T h e p a s s e n ge r o f t h e ve h ic le s h o t a t a re s id e n c e , st ri k in g t wo adul ts and a thr ee- y ear -o ld g ir l. The t hre e- y ear -o ld g ir l die d. Appel lan t c ooper ated w it h author it ies and on June 10, 2004, after tes ti fyi ng at the tr ial of the adul t c o- defendant w ho fire d t h e we a p on, p lea ded t ru e to the o ff ense of murder

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 19.02 (V er non 2003). The tr ial co urt s entenc ed appe ll ant t o the Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion (TYC) for a det ermin ate sente nce o f tw elve y ears.At t he m ot i on t o t r ansf er hea r i ng, t he p ar t i es st i pul at ed t hat app el l ant was t went y y ear s ol d. 1 2 On J uly 3, 2008, the TY C re q uest ed th a t a t ra nsfer hear ing be c onduc ted t o deter mine w hether

appel lan t s houl d be tr ansfer re d to the Tex as Dep artment of Criminal Jus ti ce–I nst it uti onal Di v is ion (TD CJ –ID ). The TYC sta ted that appel lan t h a d no t yet compl eted his tw elv e- y ear se ntenc e and that TYC bel iev ed appel lan t' s condu ct w it hin the TYC i ndi cat ed that the w elfar e of the communi ty

r eq uir ed hi s t ra nsfer. See Actof Ma y 27, 1995, 74th Leg ., R. S., ch. 262, § 61, 1 995 T EX
. G EN
. L AW S 2517, 2572 (a mended 200 7) (g iv ing TYC aut hority to refe r a child t o t h e juv enile co urt for transf er to T DCJ–ID bef ore the chi ld beco mes tw enty -o ne y ear s of ag e) (cur re nt v er si on atT EX
. H UM
. R ES
. C OD E A NN
. § 61. 079( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009) ); In re J.J. , 276 S.W .3d 171 , 174 -77 (Te x . App .–A ustin 2 0 0 8 , pe t. d e n ie d ) (p ro vidi n g th a t th e p ro visio n o f th e h u m a n re so u rce s cod e gove rn in g a tr ansfer i n eff ectat the t ime a j uv eni le w as adj udi cat ed del inq uent g ov er ns a r eferr al of the juv eni le by

TY C for transfer ). O n Aug ust25, 200 8 , th e t rial c our t ent er ed an or der tr ansfer ring appel lan t i nto t he c ust ody of the TD CJ –ID for c omplet ion of his tw elv e- y ear sentence. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 4

. 1 1 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( V e r n o n S u p p
. 2 0 0 9 )

. A p p ell ant

1 appeal s fr om the tr ial co urt' s t ra nsfer or der

. See id . § 56. 01(c)(2) (Vernon Supp . 200 9). Conclud ing tha t the record contain s no reversible error and no jurisdictional de f ects, appel lan t' s c ounse l filed an And ers b r i e f i n w h i c h h e r e v i e w e d t h e me r i t s , o r l a c kt h e r e o f, of t he a pp ea l

. W e affi r m. I. C ompli ance w it h And ers v. California Pursuantto And ers v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967 ), appe ll ant ’s court-ap poin ted app ellate coun sel has filed a brief w ith this Court, sta ting that " the re areT he T exas Cour t of C r i m i nal Appeal s has hel d t hat “ t he p r o se r esponse need not com pl y w i t h t he 2 rul es of ap pe l l ate pro c ed ure i n o rde r t o b e c on s i de red

. R athe r, t he res po ns e s ho u l d i de nti fy for t he co urt t hose i ssues whi ch t he i ndi gent app el l ant bel i ev es t he co ur t shou l d con si der i n de c i di ng whet her t he ca se pre s en t s an y m eri t ori ou s i s s ue s
. ” I n r e Schulm an , 252 S. W

. 3d 4 03, 409 n. 23 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 8) ( quot i ng W i l s o n v . S ta te , 95 5 S

. W

. 2d 69 3, 69 6-9 7 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ))

. 3 no arg uabl e g ro unds for r ev er sal ." See id .; In r e D .A.S

. , 973 S.W .2d 296, 29 9 ( Tex . 199 8) ( o r i g
. p r o c e e d i n g ) ( a p p l y i n g p r o c e d u r e s e n u me r a t e d i n A n d ers to juvenile mat ters). Co u n se l’s bri e f

di sc u ss e s rele van t po rt io n s of th e re co rd as th e y pe rt a in to th e fo llo wing: (1 ) the suffici ency of t he ev ide nce to suppo rt the tr ansfer ; and (2 ) obj ect io n s m a d e by defense c ounse l at t he tr ansfer hear ing

. See In r

e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 07 n. 9 (Tex . Cr im. App. 2008) (“ In Tex as, an And ers br ief need not s peci fical ly adv ance ‘arg uabl e’ poi nts of er ro r if counsel f ind s none, but it must pr ov ide r ecord r eferenc es to t he facts and p ro cedural hi sto ry

and setout per

ti nent leg al author it ies .” ) (c it ing Hawki ns v. State , 112 S.W .3d 3 40, 3 43- 44 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti 2003, no p et.) ); 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 an d sett ing out pertin ent legal auth orities, appel lan t' s c ounse l has car efull y disc uss ed w hy , under cont ro ll ing authori ty , 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 from the TYC to the TD CJ –ID

. See H i g h v. Sta te , 5 7 3 S. W .2d 8 07, 8 13 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 8)

. Cou nsel has sta ted t o thi s C our

t t hat h e i s u nabl e to ra is e a n y a rgu a b le is sue for appe al and has forw ar ded a copy

of the b ri ef and hi s r eq uestto w it hdr aw as co unsel to appel lan t. C ounse l als o pr ov ide d appel lan t w it h a copy of t he re cord and infor med appel lan t of hi s ri g ht to
re v iew the re cord and to fil e a pro se re spons e. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Staff ord , 2 813 S.W .2d at 510 n.3; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d at 409 n.23. Mo re than an4

adeq uate per iod of ti me has pas sed, and appel lan t has not f il ed a pr o se r espon se. Se e In r e Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 409

.

II. I ndependen t R ev iew Upo n r ecei v ing an And ers br ief, w e mustco nducta full ex aminat ion of all the pr oceed ing s to deter mine w hether the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. Pen son v. Ohio , 488 U .S. 75, 8 0 ( 1988)

. W e hav e r ev iew ed t he ent ir e r ecord and couns el' s b ri ef and hav e found not hing that w ould arguably supp ort an a ppe al. Se e Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 8 24, 8 2 6
- 2 8 ( Te x
. C r 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 An ders b rie fs, by i ndi cat ing i n the opi nio n tha t it c o nsi der ed th e i ss ues ra is ed i n the br iefs and r ev iew ed th e r ecord for
rev ersible error but f oun d non e, the court of app eals m et th e requireme nt of Te x as Rule of Appel lat e Procedu re 47.1 .” ); Sta fford , 813 S .W .2 d a t 509. A cc or din g ly , w e aff ir m the tr ansfer or der of the t ri al cour

t. III

. Mo ti on to W it hdr aw In ac cordance w it h And ers , app ell ant’ s a ttor ney has as ked thi s C our

t for per mis si on t o w i t h d r a w a s c o u n s e l fo r a p pel lan t. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; see also In re Schu lm an , 252 S. W .3d a t 408 n.17 ( ci ti ng Je ffer 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 att orne y

believes the ap pea l is f rivo lo u s , h e must
w it hdr aw from r epr esent ing the appel lan t. To w it hdr aw from r epr esent ati on, t he appo int ed atto rney must file 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 friv olo us. ”) (C it ati ons omit ted.) ). W e g ra nt c ounse l’ s mot ion to w it hdr aw tha t w as carried w ith the case on Nov em ber 3, 2 009 . W ithin five days of the dat e of this Cou rt ’s opi nio n, c ounse l is or der ed to send a copy of the opi nio n and jud g ment t o appel lan tN o subst i t ut e counsel wi l l be appoi nt ed. Shoul d ap pel l ant wi sh t o see k f ur t her r ev i ew oft hi s case 3 by t he T ex as C ou rt of C ri m i na l A pp ea l s , he m us t ei t he r r etai n a n a tto rn e y to fi l e a pe t i t i on for di s c ret i on ary r e v ie w o r f ile a p r o s e p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w . A n y p e tit io n f o r d is c r e tio n a r y r e v ie w m u s t b e f ile d w ith in th ir ty d a ys f r o m th e d a te o f e ith e r th is o p in io n o r th e la s t t im e ly m o tio n f o r r e h e a r in g th a t w a s o v e r r u le d b y th is C o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 2. Any pet i t i on f or di scr et i onar y r ev i ew m ust be f i l ed wi t h t hi s C our t , af t er whi ch i t w i l l b e fo rw a rd e d to th e T e x a s C o u rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 3; 68. 7. Any pet i t i on f or d i s c re ti o n a r y r e v i e w s h o u l d c o m p l y w i th th e re q u i re m e n ts o f ru l e 6 8 .4 o f th e T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a te P ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68. 4. 5 a n d t o a d vis e a p p e ll a n t o f h is ri gh t t o f il e a p e t it io n fo r di s c re t io n a ry r e vie w. See T EX
. R. 3 A PP
. P. 48.4; see als o In re Sc hul m an , 252 S.W .3d a t 4 1 2 n.35 ; Ex par te O wens , 206 S.W .3d 670 , 673 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06).

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 17th day of Dec ember , 200 9.