Court Opinion

ID: 9890064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 08:10:55.627984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:29.055374
License: Public Domain

In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                        Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                      No. 07-23-00187-CV

                                  IN THE MATTER OF Z.C.

                              On Appeal from the 99th District Court
                                     Lubbock County, Texas
              Trial Court No. 2019-760,554, Honorable Douglas H. Freitag, Presiding

                                       October 6, 2023
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION
                        Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

          ZC appeals from an order transferring him from the custody of the Texas Juvenile

Justice Department (TJJD) to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

(TDCJ) to complete a determinate sentence. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 54.11. We

affirm.

          The trial court initially adjudicated ZC of engaging in delinquent conduct, namely

murder. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.03(a)(1) (describing delinquent conduct); TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (describing offense of murder). According to the record, he

and another male were in the process of committing burglary when confronted by a

neighbor. ZC shot the neighbor. Thereafter, the trial court adjudicated him as engaging

in delinquent conduct, i.e., murder, assessed a determinate sentence of thirty years, and
placed him with the TJJD. Upon his turning 18, the State moved to transfer him to the

TDCJ, which motion the trial court granted upon hearing the evidence.

       ZC appealed and his court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief with

an accompanying motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,

1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); see In re R.D.D., No. 07-22-00054-CV, 2022 Tex. App.

LEXIS 6526, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo August 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying

Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings). Through the former, counsel represented

that she thoroughly reviewed the record and found “no appealable issues.” So too did

counsel provide a copy of the brief, motion to withdraw, and record to ZC, while informing

him of his right to file a pro se response to them. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

318-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (setting forth duties of counsel). We notified both ZC and

his mother of the same right and set September 27, 2023, as the deadline by which to file

any response. None was received.

       Per In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding),

we conducted our own independent examination of the record for arguable issues

supporting an appeal. It revealed none. Thus, we affirm the Order of Transfer to the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. However, no action is

taken on counsel’s motion to withdraw. Rather, counsel’s attention is called to the

continuing duty of representation through the exhaustion or termination of all proceedings,

which may include the filing of a petition for review. In re R.D.D., 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS

6526, at *2 n.2.

                                                              Brian Quinn
                                                              Chief Justice
                                            2