NO. 07-05-0337-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JUNE 9, 2006

______________________________ IN THE MATTER OF D.L.C.

________________________________ FROM THE CO UNTY COURT OF SW ISHER COUN TY; NO. 387; HON ORABLE HAROLD KEETER, JUDG E

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant, D.L.C., a j uvenile, app eals from an order of adjudication and dispositi on finding that he had engaged in delinquent con duct and committing him to the Texas Youth Commission. D.L.C.’sappointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brie f in sup port o f that mot ion. We gra nt coun sel’s motion to w ithdr

aw an d affirm.
D.L.C. was charged w ith engagi ng in deli nquent conduct b ased on his unauthori zed
use of his mother’s motor vehic le. D.L.C. pled true to the char ge and wai ved his r ight to
a jury tr ial. The tri al court acc epted D.L.C.’s plea a nd fou nd that he had engaged in delinqu entconduct. After hol ding a dispo sition heari ng, the tri al court commit ted D.L .C

.1 W hile appellate counsel f ailed to ensure that a certif ied co py of the recor ding of the hearing w

as made a part of

the appellate record, this court, pu rsuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5( c)(1), hasobtained a supple mental clerk’s record w hich includes this reco rding.

2 Our review of counsel’s brief reveals that it does not meet the standardsrequired by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998)(applyi ng the Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings). An A nder s brief must disc uss the evi dence presented at trial, poin t out where pertinent test imony may be found i n the record, refer to objection s made at trial, iden tify the n atur

e of t hese obj ecti ons, ide ntif y the trial court’s rulings on these objections, and dis cuss either why the trial court’s ruling was correct or why the appellant was n o t harmed by

the ruling of the trial cour t. High v . State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1978). Appellate couns el’s brief hasfailed to comply with these requirements. However, while we stron gly adv ise appellate counsel to rev iew the r eq uirements set ou t in Anders and High , after revi ewing t he record, w e have dete rmined that it would serve no us eful purpose to requir

e appellate couns el to rebri ef. See Bradley v . State , Nos. 2-04-073-CR, 2-04-074-CR, 2-04-075-CR , 2005 WL 2043960, at *1, n. 2 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (mem.); McC lain v. S ta te , No. 13-01-24 6-CR, 2001 WL 1559233, at *1, n. 1 (Tex.App.–Cor pus Christi 2001, no pet.) (mem.)

. See also Homan v. Hug hes , 708 S.W.2d 449, 454 (Tex.C rim.App. 1986)(the law does not

compel us to require courts to perform useless tasks). Ve ry few ob jections were lodged dur ing the punis hment hearing an d D.L.C.’s only objec

tion that was not sustained was based on hearsay. Our independent review reveals no reversi ble error. Thus, we have concluded that we will be able to justly review the appeal, e ven wi thout the benefit of an adeq uate brief. Bradley , 2 0 0 5 WL 2043960, at *1, n.2; McClain , 2001 WL 1559233, at *1, n. 1. 2 to the Texas Youth Commission for an indeterminat e sentence not to excee d his 21st birth day.
D.L.C.’s counsel has fil ed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support thereof which states that counsel has carefully reviewed the record an d listened tothe recordi ng of the hearing 1 and i s of the opinion that t he record refle cts no rev ersible er ror upon w hich an appeal can arguabl y be predicated. Counsel thusconcludes that the appeal is frivolous. 2
Counsel has attached an exhib it showi ng that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw

have been forw

arded to D.L.C. and hi s parent appropr iately adv ising them of3 We find no reversible er ror in the t rial cour t’s overruli ng of D.L.C.’ s hearsay objection. The objected t o doc ument was the parental written stateme nt of D.L.C.’s mother. D.L.C.’s mother testified at the hearing , providi ng essential ly the same i nformation contained in the statement. Further, she was subj ected to cross examination. Thus, any error in the trial court overrul ing D.L.C .’s hearsay objection w

as rendered harml ess by the same evidence being properly admitted, without objection, th rough D.L.C.’s mother’s test imon y. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.1; Texas Dept. of Transp . v. Able , 35 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. 2000). 3 their right to review

the record and of the parent’s r ight to file a pro se respon se to counsel’s moti on and brief. No r esponse has been fil ed.
We have made an ind e pendent ex amination of the record to determine whether there are any non-

frivolous g rounds upon w hich an appeal could arguabl y be founded. See Pe n son v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.E d.2d 300 (1988); Staf for d v. State , 813 S.W .2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App . 1991). W e have found no such ground s. 3 Having considered themer i ts and finding n o revers ible error , we gr ant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and aff irm the trial court’s order.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice