1 An de rs v . Ca liforn ia , 386 U .S. 738 , 744-45 , 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2 d 493 ( 1967). NO. 07-05-0179-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C SEPTEMBER 7, 2005

______________________________ THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST

AND PROT ECTION OFT.R.G.

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 2005-M-055; HON. JAMES ANDERSON, PRESIDING

_________________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_________________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. This is an appeal from an order in voluntar ily commi tting T.R .G. (appel lant) to N orth Texas State Ho spital i n WichitaFalls, T exas, fo r no more than 365 days. He was so committed to receive extended mental health services. H is appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders 1 brief in conjunct ion with that moti on. In th e brief, counsel represen ts that, after conducting a diligent search, he found no meritorious issues warranting appeal. Along with his brief, appellate cou nsel sent appellant a letter informing him of his conclusions and his right to file a pro se response. We too informed appella nt, by letter, of his right to file a pro se response, and one was received by the co urt from hi m. Se veral supplem ental res ponses were alsoforwarde d to thiscourt. H owever, t h e2

commen ts in the pro se responses are generally incomp rehensible and sometimes profane. Theyalso fail to illustrate that the trial court erred in a ny way or that appellant’s commitment was and is unlawful. Next, in complia nce with the principles enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel illustrates whythe appeal lacks mer it. His f irst issu e involv es wheth er Anders even applies to an appeal from a commitment proceeding, and he concl udes that it does. We agreewith that determin ation. See In the Matter of E.M, No. 03-96-00703
- CV, 1997 Tex. App. L EXIS 2511(Tex. App.–Austin May 1, 1997, no writ) (unpublished) (appl ying Anders in an appeal from a comm itment ord er). Next, coun sel discusses two potential areas for error. The first concerns the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution and w hether it was violated when the trial court permitted a witness to testify via the telephone. The second invo lves the effective assistance of counsel when he withheld object ion to the decision allowing testimony to be received over the phone. Each issu e was then shown to be baseless. For instance, trial counsel was given leav e to cross-examine and actually questioned the witness over the telephon e. So, ap pellant’ s opportu nity to test the comments of the witness
was preserved in this ins tance. A dditiona lly, app ellant s ays nothi ng about being u nable to broach or inves tigate an y particu lar subje ct due to the proce dure util ized. An d, bec ause appellant

had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and actually did so, withholding objection to the pr

ocedure d id not re nder tria l counse l ineffec tive. We agree. In addition to reading the Anders bri ef and appellant's pro se response, we also reviewed the recor

d, sua spon te , as required by Stafford v . State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our review of it disclosed no argua ble error warranting reversal.3

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the order committing appellant to North T exas Sta te Hospi tal not to exceed 365 days

is affirm ed.

Per Curiam