In the Matter of J. F. S. a Child v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 2, 2024
• Docket: 01-23-00784-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 2, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00784-CV ——————————— IN THE MATTER OF J.F.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. JV24239

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant J.F.S. pleaded true to two allegations of delinquent conduct for

burglary of a habitation and deadly conduct. See Tex. Fam. Code § 51.03(a); see

also TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.02(c)(2) (burglary of habitation, second-degree felony

as alleged); id. § 22.05(a) (deadly conduct, Class A Misdemeanor). The trial court

found him delinquent and placed him on probation for fifteen months. The State subsequently moved to revoke J.F.S.’s probation, alleging multiple violations of

the terms of his probation. J.F.S. pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to

revoke, and the trial court ultimately revoked J.F.S.’s probation and sentenced him

to commitment to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for an indeterminant

period of time not to exceed the date that J.F.S. turns nineteen years old. J.F.S.

appeals the trial court’s order.

J.F.S.’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is

without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re

D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (holding that Anders procedures apply to

juvenile appeals).

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal

authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record

and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and

the Anders brief to J.F.S. and informed J.F.S. of his right to file a response and

2 access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that he complied with the requirements of

Kelly v. State. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). J.F.S. did not file

a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing

that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d

763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether

arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court

determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We further deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw on the grounds that the Supreme Court of Texas 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) (holding same in context of parental-termination appeals). This Court

has applied In re P.M. in juvenile appeals. In re A.C., No. 01-15-00931-CV, 2016

WL 1658777, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem.

3 op.). We thus conclude that counsel’s obligations to J.F.S. have not yet been

discharged. If J.F.S., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for

review, counsel should timely file with the Supreme Court of Texas “a petition for

review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d

at 28; In re A.C., 2016 WL 1658777, at *1 (denying motion to withdraw in juvenile

case); see also In re K.A.E., 647 S.W.3d 791, 792 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022,

no pet.) (applying In re P.M. in juvenile case). For these reasons, we deny

counsel’s motion to withdraw. We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

Richard Hightower Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.