Court Opinion

ID: 9890719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-14 11:10:48.427482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:11.882846
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00251-CV

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                         TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF                                       §       APPEAL FROM THE

B. B., A JUVENILE                                      §       COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3

                                                       §       SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                              PER CURIAM
        B.B. appeals the trial court’s order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile Justice
Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to complete the
remainder of his twelve-year determinate sentence for delinquent conduct. B.B.’s counsel filed a
brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 1 We affirm.

                                               BACKGROUND
        B.B. was charged by petition with delinquent conduct related to one count of aggravated
robbery and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Smith County grand jury
approved the petition allowing the State to seek a determinate sentence. A plea agreement was
reached in which the State dropped the aggravated robbery charge, Appellant pleaded “true” to
the aggravated assault charges, and the State recommended a twelve-year determinate sentence.
The trial court imposed a determinate sentence of twelve years on August 12, 2021, in
accordance with the agreement. B.B. did not appeal at that time.

        1
           See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (holding that Anders procedures
apply to juvenile matters).
         On July 20, 2021, TJJD requested that B.B. be transferred to TDCJ. After conducting an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered that B.B. be transferred to TDCJ to serve the
remainder of his determinate sentence. This appeal followed.

                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         B.B.’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has
diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no
reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our
review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case.
In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case,
and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 2 We have
considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the appellate record.
We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Accordingly, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

                                                   CONCLUSION
         Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding).                   We carried the motion with the case for
consideration on the merits. However, despite our having found no reversible error, we deny
counsel’s request to withdraw. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27-28 (Tex. 2016). The Texas
Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental
rights extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition
for review.” Id. at 27. After disposition by the Court of Appeals, an appeal in a juvenile matter
is made to the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 56.01(a), (c)(2) (West 2022).
Accordingly, applying In re P.M. to the circumstances of this case, we conclude that counsel has
not yet discharged his obligation to Appellant. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. If, after
consulting with counsel, Appellant wishes to file a petition for review, counsel should timely file
with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders

         2
          B.B.’s counsel has certified that he provided B.B. with a copy of this brief. B.B. was given time to file his
own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.

                                                          2
brief.” In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28; cf. A.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., No.
03-16-00543-CV, 2016 WL 5874880, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 5, 2016, no pet.) (mem.
op.). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

                                                               GREG NEELEY
                                                                  Justice

Opinion delivered October 11, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                          OCTOBER 11, 2023

                                         NO. 12-22-00251-CV

                           IN THE MATTER OF B. B., A JUVENILE
                            Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 003-0048-21)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
                    Greg Neeley, Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.