### NUM BER 13-07- 671- 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
CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG

IN THE M A

TTER OF J.C.M ., A

JUVENILE

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 38t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



# MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON
Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s On J anuar

y 12, 2006, the d is tr ic t c our t ent er ed a Jud gm e n t of Adjud ic ati on and Di spos it ion adjudg ing J.C. M. as hav ing engag ed in juv eni le cond uct

. T EX

. F AM

. C OD E A NN

. § 51. 03( a) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007)

. J.C .M . w as p la ce d o n probati on. The Stat e of Tex as filed v ar iou s mot ion s t o modi fy J.C .M .’ s p ro bati on. On S eptember

10, 2007, the d is tr ic t c our t hel d a h ear ing w her ein the cour t r ecei v ed
a pr og re ss r epor

t s etti ng forth v ar iou s v iol ati ons of proba ti on by J. C. M. O n Sept ember

27,Ander s v. C al i f

or ni a, 386 U

. S. 738 , 744 ( 1967) 1 2 2007, the c our

t held a heari ng , and a sti pul ati on w as enter ed that the prog re ss r epor t w as tr ue

. A fte r

h ea r i ng al l th e ev i de nc e, th e tr i al c ou r t fou nd t ha t J .C .M

. ha d v i ol at ed t he t er ms and c ondi ti ons of his pr obati on and commi tted him to t he Tex as Y outh Commi ss ion

. J.C .M .’ s a ppel lat e c ounse l, co ncl udi ng that "ther e ar e no ar g uabl e gro u n d s t o be adv anced on a ppeal ," fil ed an A n ders brief in w hich he rev iew ed th e me rits, or lack 1
th er eo f, of t he a pp ea l

. W e affi r m. I. D ISC US SION
A

. Compliance w ith An der s v. Cal if or ni a J.C .M .’ s couns el filed an And ers br ief, in w hic h he conc lud es ther e i s n othi ng that meri ts r ev iew

on dir ect appeal. Ander s v . C ali for nia , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967 ). J.C.M.’s b r i e f me e t s t h e r e q u i r e me n t s o f And ers

. Id . at 744- 45; see Hi gh v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 8 07, 812 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 8)

. In c ompli ance w it h And ers , c ounse l pr esent ed a prof ession al evaluation of the reco rd and ref erred th is Court to w hat , in his opinio n, are all is sues w hic h mig ht ar g uabl y su ppor t an appeal

. See Ande rs , 386 U .S. at 74 4; Currie

v. Stat e , 516 S.W .2d 684, 684 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1974) ; see als o H igh , 573 S.W .2d a t 812

. Cou nsel has i nformed t his C our t t hat h e ( 1) has dili g entl y r ead and r ev iew ed th e record an d the circum s t a n c e s of J.C.M.’s comm itme nt, inclu ding the he aring at w hich J.C .M .’ s p ro bati on w as re v oked; ( 2) bel iev es that ther e ar e no ar g uabl e g ro unds to be adv anced on a ppeal ; and ( 3) forw ar ded t o J .C .M . a copy of the b ri e f

a lo n g wit h a l etter infor ming hi m of his rig ht to rev iew the re cor d and to fil e a p ro se br ief. See Ande rs , 3863

U. S. a t 7 4 4 -45; see als o St affor d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 5 03, 5 09 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1991) (e n banc ); H

i gh , 5 73 S. W .2d at 813 . Althou gh juv enile ca ses are classif ied as civi l
pr oceed ing s, they

are qua si -c ri minal in nature , and the And ers proce dure app lies to th ese pr oceed ing s. In r

e D .A.S . & R. A.H ., 97 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 9 6 , 2 9 8 -9 9 (T e x. 19 9 8 ) (o rig.
p r o c e e d i n g )

. J

. C

. M

. h a s n o t fi l e d a p r o s e b r i e f.
B. In dep end ent R ev iew The Un it ed St ates Supr eme Cou rt has adv is ed appe ll ate c our ts that upon r ecei v ing a "fri v olo us appeal " br ief, t hey must conduct "a full ex aminat ion of al l the p ro ceedi ng s t o deci de w hether

the cas e i s w hol ly

fri v olo us. " Pe ns on v. Oh io , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (198 8); Ybar ra v. Sta te , 93 S. W .3d 922 , 926 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 3, n o pet. ). Accordin gly , w e ha v e caref ully rev iew ed th e record an d ha v e f oun d no thing tha t w ould

ar g uabl y suppor t an appeal

. See B led

soe v. Stat e , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 2005) ; Sta fford , 813 S.W .2d at 509 . W e ag re e with coun sel tha t the app eal is w holly friv olo u s a n d wit hout meri t. See B led soe , 178 S.W .3d a t 827 -2 8 ( "Due to the n atur e of And ers b r i e fs , b y

i n d i c a t i n g i n t h e o p i n i o n t h a t i t c o n s i d e r e d t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e b r i e fs and r ev iew ed th e r ecor d for re v er si ble er ro r but found n one, the cour t of appeals m et t he requireme nts of

Te x as Rule of

Appe llate Proce dure 47.1 .").
II. C ON CL US ION The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt is aff ir med. W e or der co unsel to noti fy appel lan t of the d is posi ti on of thi s a p p e a l a nd th e av ail abi li ty of dis cr eti onar

y r ev iew

. See E

x p ar te W il son , 956 S.W .2d 2 5, 27 ( Tex . C rim. App. 1997) ( per cu ri am). C ounse l has filed a moti on to w it hdr aw

from furt her

repr esent ati on of

J.C. M. on appeal . Coun sel ’s moti on to4

w it hdr aw i s g ra nted. In r

e Sc hul m an, 252 S.W .3d 4 03, 4 10 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2008)

.

_________

_________

________ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 7t h day

of Aug ust , 200 8.