in the Matter of L.H., a Juvenile

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 9, 2018
• Docket: 11-17-00348-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed August 9, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-17-00348-CV __________

IN THE MATTER OF L.H., A JUVENILE

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 6894

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from an adjudication and commitment order in which the trial court committed Appellant, L.H., to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for an indeterminate period of time, not to exceed L.H.’s nineteenth birthday. We dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from juvenile proceedings). In light of a holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion to withdraw “may be premature” if filed in the court of appeals under the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief.” Id. at 27–28. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the motion to withdraw, and an explanatory letter. Counsel also informed Appellant of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. We note that counsel’s letter reflects that Appellant’s guardian was sent a copy via certified and first class mail. We conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his duties under Anders, Schulman, and Kelly. Appellant has not filed a response.1 Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record in this cause, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. However, in light of P.M., we deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court-appointed counsel. See P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27; In re A.H., 530 S.W.3d 715, 716–17 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.) (applying

1 This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.

2 Anders and P.M. to an appeal from an order committing a juvenile to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

August 9, 2018 Panel consists of: Willson, J., Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating.

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.