In Re C.R.W. v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re C.R.W. v. the State of Texas (In Re C.R.W. v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-24-00182-CV
IN RE C.R.W.
From the 386th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022JUV00387 Honorable Jacqueline Herr-Valdez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 29, 2025
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED
In an original petition alleging delinquent conduct, C.R.W. was alleged to have engaged in
delinquent conduct by committing felony theft in violation of section 31.03(a), (b)(1), (e)(4)(A) of
the Texas Penal Code. C.R.W. pled true to the allegation of felony theft. C.R.W. then stipulated to
evidence provided by the State, and the State recommended probation. After determining C.R.W.
engaged in delinquent conduct for committing felony theft, the juvenile court placed C.R.W. on
probation. The State filed multiple motions to modify disposition based on C.R.W.’s continuous
violations of probation, including committing additional criminal offenses. In each instance, the
juvenile court determined C.R.W. violated the terms of his probation and modified the terms of
C.R.W.’s probation. 04-24-00182-CV
Finally, the State filed its Fourth Motion to Modify Disposition alleging additional
violations of C.R.W.’s probation terms. Following a hearing, the juvenile court signed its corrected
order of adjudication and corrected order modifying disposition commitment to the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department with an indeterminate sentence, both rendered March 7, 2024, but signed
March 19, 2024. C.R.W. appealed.
C.R.W.’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. 1978). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion
to withdraw to C.R.W. 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). C.R.W. did not request a copy of the
appellate record. C.R.W. 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.
-2- 04-24-00182-CV
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 C.R.W. have not yet been
discharged. If C.R.W., after consulting with counsel, desires 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 brief.” 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 juvenile court’s corrected order of adjudication and corrected order
modifying disposition commitment to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, both rendered March
7, 2024, but signed March 19, 2024.
Irene Rios, Justice
-3-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re C.R.W. v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-crw-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.