In the Matter of C.S., a Juvenile v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-00951-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed May 9, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00951-CV

IN THE MATTER OF C.S., A JUVENILE

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD-22-00194-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Goldstein C.S. appeals the trial court’s order transferring him from the Texas Juvenile

Justice Department (TJJD) to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).

C.S. was adjudicated delinquent after entering a plea of true on one count of capital

murder and was given a 23-year determinate sentence with a possible transfer to

TDCJ. After C.S. committed numerous infractions while in the custody of TJJD,

TJJD requested an early transfer of C.S. to TDCJ. TJJD stated that, although C.S.

had not yet completed his sentence, C.J’s conduct indicated the welfare of the

community required his transfer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court

ordered C.S. to be transferred. C.S.’s court-appointed counsel filed a notice of appeal on C.S.’s behalf and has since filed a brief, stating that in his professional

opinion the appeal is without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for

reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Anders procedures are appropriate in appeals from juvenile transfer hearings

See In Re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 226, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (Because

Anders protects juveniles’ statutory right to counsel on appeal, we hold the

procedures enumerated in Anders apply to juvenile appeals); In re R.M., III, No.

13-09-00316-CV, 2010 WL 467414, at *1 (Tex. App—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

Feb. 11, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from

juvenile transfer order). An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute

a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Under the Anders procedure, if appointed counsel finds the appeal frivolous, counsel

must file a brief explaining why the appeal lacks merit. Anders, 386 U.S. 744-45;

D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d at 297.

Here, C.S.’s counsel provided C.S. with a copy of the Anders brief and

advised him of his right to examine the record and file his own response.1 This Court

separately provided C.S. with a copy of the brief and notified him of his right to

examine the record and file a response. C.S. has not responded.

1 C.S. is over the age of eighteen and able to represent himself in this appeal. –2– In his brief, C.S.’s counsel demonstrated that he reviewed the record and

concluded the appeal was without merit and frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

He states that in his professional opinion no arguable grounds for reversal exist and

that any appeal would therefore lack merit. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the

minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id.;

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. We have independently reviewed the record and

counsel’s brief, and we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

In his brief, counsel requests that he be permitted to withdraw as appellate

counsel; no separate motion was filed with the Court. A court-appointed attorney’s

duties to a client in a juvenile case continue through the filing of a petition for review,

and a motion to withdraw may be premature unless good cause is shown. See Matter

of T.M., 583 S.W.3d 836, 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.) (extending In re

P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) to Anders appeals in juvenile

cases); In re A.H., 530 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.)

(same). Counsel has not shown good cause for withdrawing from his representation

of C.S., and, as a result, his obligations have not been discharged. See T.M., 583

S.W.3d at 838. Accordingly, we deny counsel’s request to withdraw.

–3– We affirm the trial court’s transfer order.

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE

230951F.P05

–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE MATTER OF C.S., A On Appeal from the 304th Judicial JUVENILE District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD-22-00194- No. 05-23-00951-CV W. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Reichek and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered May 9, 2024

–5–