In the Matter of D.S. v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00571-CV

___________________________

In the Matter of D.S.

On Appeal from the 323rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 323-121165-23

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant D.S. appeals from a juvenile-court order transferring him to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to complete the remainder of his determinate sentence. We affirm.

In 2023, pursuant to an agreement with the State, D.S. judicially confessed to committing murder; the trial court found him delinquent and sentenced him to the agreed twenty-year determinate sentence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 53.045(a)(1) (providing that a murder offense is eligible for determinate sentencing).

In December 2024, the trial court held a hearing and ordered D.S. transferred to TDCJ to serve the remainder of his sentence. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.11. D.S. timely filed a notice of appeal.

D.S.’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and accompanying brief in which he asserts that “the record in this cause presents no issues of arguable merit upon direct appeal.” Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. 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 and motion to withdraw to D.S., informed D.S. of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response to the

3

Anders brief, provided D.S. with a form pro se motion to access the record, and informed D.S. of his right to file a petition for review pro se with the Texas Supreme Court should we affirm the trial court’s judgment. D.S. did not file a pro se response in this court. The State declined to file a brief but indicated in a letter that it agreed with D.S.’s counsel that D.S. “has no meritorious grounds upon which to advance an appeal in this case.”

Because D.S.’s counsel has 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 affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

If D.S. wishes to seek further review of this case, then he must either file a pro se petition for review—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 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 a 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).

4

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker

Justice

Delivered: July 24, 2025