Opinion
NO. 02-17-00299-CV
04-26-2018
IN THE MATTER OF S.H., A JUVENILE
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 323-103898-16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
In May 2017, a jury found that Appellant S.H. engaged in delinquent conduct by committing aggravated assault of a public servant, a third-degree felony, and the trial court adjudicated her delinquent and placed her on twelve months' probation in August 2017. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(1) (West Supp. 2017) (providing the elements of assault of a public servant and that assault of a public servant is a third-degree felony), Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.03 (West 2014) (providing the procedures for an adjudication hearing), § 54.04 (West Supp. 2017) (providing the procedures for a disposition hearing). Appellant timely appealed.
Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel avers that in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal. See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (holding that Anders procedures apply to juvenile appeals).
This court provided Appellant and her mother the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief, but they have not done so. The State also did not file a brief.
When an appellant's court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we must independently examine the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on the appellant's behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re A.H., 530 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017, no pet.). When determining whether a ground for appeal exists, we consider the record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); A.H., 530 S.W.3d at 717.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); A.H., 530 S.W.3d at 717. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.
However, for the reasons expressed in the Supreme Court of Texas's In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 26-28 (Tex. 2016), and this court's A.H., 530 S.W.3d at 717, we deny counsel's motion to withdraw.
PER CURIAM PANEL: PITTMAN, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DELIVERED: April 26, 2018