in the Matter of F.C.M.
This text of in the Matter of F.C.M. (in the Matter of F.C.M.) 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
i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00827-CV
In the MATTER OF F.C.M.
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-JUV-02114 Honorable, Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 18, 2008
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, F.C.M. pleaded true to the State’s petition alleging he
committed the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court followed the plea
agreement by taking into consideration five other delinquency cases and imposing a five-year
determinate sentence.
F.C.M.’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
he asserts the appeal should be dismissed or, alternatively, there are no meritorious issues to raise
on appeal. Because the trial court followed the plea bargain, F.C.M. could appeal only if the trial
court granted permission. TEX . FAM . CODE ANN . § 56.01(n) (Vernon 2002). The trial court’s 04-07-00827-CV
statements to F.C.M. regarding appeal are ambiguous and arguably constitute a grant of permission
to appeal. Accordingly, we will not dismiss the appeal.
Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967), High
v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969); see In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (Anders procedures apply to appeals
from juvenile delinquency adjudications); In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1998, no pet.) (same). Counsel states she has provided the juvenile and his guardian copies
of the brief and motion to withdraw and informed them of the juvenile’s right to review the record
and file his own brief. See A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d at 360-61; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86
(Tex. App.–San Antonio, 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.–San
Antonio 1996, no pet.). No pro se brief has been filed.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by F.C.M.’s counsel and affirm the trial
court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1997, no
pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in the Matter of F.C.M., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-fcm-texapp-2008.