Court Opinion

ID: 9894019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 14:11:10.372504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:55.818968
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                      San Antonio, Texas
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                         No. 04-22-00641-CV

                                    IN THE MATTER OF C.J.Z.

                     From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2022JUV00491
                        Honorable Jacqueline Herr-Valdez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Sitting:          Beth Watkins, Justice
                  Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
                  Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 25, 2023

AFFIRMED

           In an original petition alleging delinquent conduct and seeking a determinate sentence,

fifteen-year-old C.J.Z. was alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing (1)

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 22.02 of the Texas Penal Code,

and (2) deadly conduct with a firearm at a habitation in violation of section 22.05. C.J.Z. pled true

to the first allegation of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the State waived the second

allegation. C.J.Z. then stipulated to evidence provided by the State, and the State recommended a

determinate sentence of eight years, an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon, and a previous

case (Trial Court No. 2022JUV00453) to be taken into consideration. The trial court signed an

order of adjudication, finding that C.J.Z. engaged in delinquent conduct by committing aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court further signed an order of disposition, committing
                                                                                       04-22-00641-CV

C.J.Z. to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for a term of eight years with a possible transfer

to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. C.J.Z. appealed.

       C.J.Z.’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in

which counsel asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re D.A.S., 973

S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (holding Anders procedures apply to juvenile appeals). The brief

meets the applicable requirements. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d

137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to

appellant, informing him of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State,

436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The clerk of this court then sent appellant a copy of

the appellate record. Appellant was also given time to file his own brief; however, the time for

filing such a brief has expired, and no pro se brief has been filed.

       After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). However, we decline to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. In the context of

parental termination appeals, the supreme court has held that the right to counsel extends to “all

proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” In re

P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court emphasized that “[c]ourts have a duty to see that

withdrawal of counsel will not result in foreseeable prejudice to the client.” Id. According to the

court, “[i]f a court of appeals allows an attorney to withdraw, it must provide for the appointment

of new counsel to pursue a petition for review.” Id. In In re K.A.E., 647 S.W.3d 791, 792 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2022, no pet.), we held this continued right to counsel applies equally in

juvenile appeals. Accordingly, we conclude counsel’s obligations to appellant have not yet been

discharged. If appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel

                                                 -2-
                                                                                     04-22-00641-CV

should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the standards

for an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28; see also In re K.A.E., 647 S.W.3d at 793.

For these reasons, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

       We affirm the trial court’s order of adjudication and order of disposition.

                                                 Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

                                               -3-