in the Matter of J.W.F.
This text of in the Matter of J.W.F. (in the Matter of J.W.F.) 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
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00613-CV
IN THE MATTER OF J.W.F.
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-JUV-02123-A Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2008
AFFIRMED
On August 1, 2007, appellant entered a plea of true to two violations of his probation. As
part of the plea, the State agreed to continue appellant’s probation, but there was no agreement
with regard to placement outside the home. The trial court sentenced appellant, in accordance
with his plea agreement, to an eighteen-month extension of his probation and also placed
appellant in the custody of the Chief Juvenile Probation Officer for purposes of long-term
residential placement in a secure facility. On August 31, 2007, appellant filed his pro se notice
of appeal. 04-07-00613-CV
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of
the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief
and informed him of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See 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,
178 n. 1 (Tex. App.─San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Appellant did not file a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (noting
court of appeals should not address merits of issues raised in Anders brief or pro se response but
only determine whether the appeal is frivolous). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924
S.W.2d at 178 n. 1.
Rebecca Simmons, 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 J.W.F., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-jwf-texapp-2008.