Court Opinion

ID: 9555537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 10:07:03.908363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:27.525424
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
      ___________________________
           No. 02-22-00488-CV
      ___________________________

         IN THE MATTER OF C.N.

   On Appeal from the 323rd District Court
           Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 323-114125-20

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Womack and Wallach, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      C.N. appeals from an order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile Justice

Department’s (TJJD) custody to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice (TDCJ) to complete his determinate sentence.         See Tex. Fam. Code

Ann. § 54.11. We affirm.

      The trial court initially adjudicated C.N. guilty of delinquent conduct after

finding that C.N. had committed an aggravated robbery when he was 16 years old. See

id. §§ 53.045(a)(7), 54.03. C.N. and two others had entered a home at night; C.N.,

who was carrying an AR-15, searched the home for items to steal while one of the

others pointed a handgun at one of the two victims and threatened to shoot her. C.N.

was, at the time, on community supervision for engaging in delinquent conduct by

committing unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. After the trial court adjudicated

C.N. guilty of delinquent conduct, it sentenced him to an eight-year determinate

sentence in TJJD custody. See id. § 54.04(d)(3).

      Before C.N.’s 19th birthday, TJJD requested a hearing to determine whether

C.N. should be transferred to TDCJ or released to TDCJ parole. See Tex. Hum. Res.

Code Ann. §§ 244.014(a), 245.051(c)(2). After a hearing––at which TJJD records

were introduced indicating that although C.N. did not fit TJJD’s requirements for

recommending TDCJ incarceration, he was nevertheless not a good candidate for

parole––the trial court ordered C.N. transferred to TDCJ confinement. See Tex. Fam.

Code Ann. § 54.11(i)(2), (k).

                                           2
      On appeal, C.N.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw and a brief in which he asserts that after thoroughly reviewing the record, he

has found “no errors warranting reversal that can be legitimately supported by the

record.” Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998)

(orig. proceeding) (applying Anders procedure to juvenile proceedings).

      Counsel provided a copy of the brief to C.N., informed C.N. of his right to

review the record and to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, and informed him

of his right to file a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court if this court

were to affirm the trial court’s judgment. C.N. did not file a pro se response with this

court. Additionally, the State declined to respond to the Anders brief.

      Because C.N.’s counsel filed an Anders brief, we must independently examine

the record to decide whether counsel correctly concluded that the appeal is frivolous.

See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After carefully

reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find nothing in the record that might

arguably support the appeal; thus, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore

affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

      If C.N. wishes to seek further review of this case, he must either file a pro se

petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court or retain an attorney to file a petition

for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re D.J., No. 02-20-00386-CV, 2021 WL

                                           3
2586610, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also

Tex. R. App. P. 53.2 (listing required contents of petition for review), 53.7(a)

(providing that petition for review must be filed 45 days after the date of this court’s

judgment or—if a timely motion for rehearing or a timely motion for en banc

reconsideration is filed in this court—within 45 days of this court’s last ruling on such

motions).

                                                     /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

                                                      Bonnie Sudderth
                                                      Chief Justice

Delivered: August 10, 2023

                                           4