In the Matter of M.A.M. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 22, 2024
• Docket: 01-23-00956-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 22, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00956-CV ——————————— IN THE MATTER OF M.A.M., a Juvenile

On Appeal from the 313th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2022-00766J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, M.A.M., pleaded true to an allegation that he had engaged in

delinquent conduct by committing aggravated robbery.1 The juvenile court found

appellant delinquent and placed him on probation for eight years. The State then

moved to revoke appellant’s probation, alleging violations of the terms of his

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2); see also id. § 29.02(a). probation. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations that he had violated the terms

of his probation. The juvenile court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced

him to commitment with the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for a period of eight

years. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment.

Appellant’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 are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see

also In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (holding Anders procedures

apply to juvenile appeals).

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

evaluation of the record and supplying the Court with references to the record and

legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also 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 informed the Court that he provided appellant with a copy of his

Anders brief and his motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed appellant of his

right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief.

Further, counsel provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate

2 record.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant did not file a

pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record, 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 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).

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We deny appellant’s appointed

counsel’s motion to withdraw on the grounds that the Texas Supreme Court has held

that appellant’s right to counsel extends to “all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme

2 This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the appellate record and file a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3 Court], including the filing of a petition for review.” See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24,

27 (Tex. 2016); see also In re J.F.S., No. 01-23-00784-CV, 2024 WL 3259846, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 2, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (denying

appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw in same context); In re A.C., Nos.

01-15-00931-CV to 01-15-00933-CV, 2016 WL 1658777, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (applying In re P.M. in

juvenile appeal). Because appointed counsel’s obligations to appellant have not yet

been discharged, if appellant, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition

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

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

at 27–28; see also In re J.F.S., 2024 WL 35259846, at *1. We dismiss any other

pending motions as moot.

Julie Countiss Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss