## NUMBER 13 - 10 - 001 47 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF C.A .V., A JUVENILE
On appeal from the Juvenile Court of Victoria County, Texas


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes Appellant C.A.V. appeals the juvenile court‟s order that he be transferred from the Texas Youth Commission to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to complete his
sentence

. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. §§ 51.04( a), 54.11 (Vernon 2008 & Supp. 20 10 ). On December 12, 2007, C.A.V. , as a juvenile, was adjudicated guilty of arson and after a disposition hearing, he was committed to the Texas Youth Commission under a determinate sentence of forty years. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § § 53.045 , 54.04 (Vernon 2008). After C.A.V. reached the age o f eighteen, the State requested a transfer hearing to determine whether C.A.V. should be transferred to the Texas Department of2

Criminal J ustice for the completion of his determinate sentence. On February 18, 2010, the trial court held a transfer hearing

. At the hearing, the State presented testimony from a psychologist and a Tex as Youth Commission e mployee concerning C.A.V.‟s experiences, character, and progress while committed to the Texas Youth Commission. At the c onclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered that C.A.V. be transferred to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to complete his sentence. C.A.V. filed a timely notice of appeal, and as discussed below, his court

- appointed counsel f iled

an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), C.A.V. ‟s
court
- appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. In In re D.A.S. , t he Texas Supreme Co urt held that t he Anders procedure appl ies to juvenile appeals and noted that although juvenile

- delinquency proceedings are classified as civil, they are quasi

- criminal in nature.
97 3 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex. 1998). Counsel‟s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance „arguable‟ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State , 11 2 S.W.3d 340, 343

- 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. Sta te , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex.3

Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), C.A.V. ‟s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court‟s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arg uable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counse l‟s motion to withdraw on C.A.V., and (3) informed C.A .V. of his right to review the record and to file a pro se
response. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and C.A.V. has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. The State did not file a response to counsel‟s Anders brief. But this does not prevent this Court from performing an independent review. See Siverand v. State , 89 S.W.3d 216, 219

- 20 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (performing an independent examination of appellant‟s issue on appeal when State did not file a response brief).
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel‟s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824,
826

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for

1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court s hould consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

- 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4

reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1

. ”); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court‟s transfer order

. III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , C.A.V.‟ s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to w ithdraw as counsel for C.A.V. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 90 3 S.W.2d 776, 779

- 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that “[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous

. ”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel‟s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court‟s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this Court‟s opinion and judgment to C.A.V. and to advise him of his right to file a petition for further review

. 2 See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 56.01( a) (Vernon Supp. 2010);

s ee also T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

______________________ Gregory T. Perkes Justice

Delivered and filed the 10th day of February , 201 1

.

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should C.A.V. wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Supreme Court , he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a pro se petition for review.