in the Matter of D. M. R. ( 2010 )

i i i i i i
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00741-CV
In the MATTER OF D.M.R.
From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-JUV-01866
Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding1
Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 14, 2010
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
D.M.R., a juvenile, pleaded true to one alleged probation violation in response to the State’s
second motion to modify disposition, and the State abandoned two other alleged violations.
Following a disposition hearing, the trial court placed D.M.R. in the custody of the Chief Juvenile
Probation Officer of Bexar County for the purpose of placement outside the home. D.M.R. filed a
timely notice of appeal.
1
… The relevant orders in this case were first signed by the Honorable Irma D. Hernandez, Associate Judge of
the 289th Judicial District Court, and then countersigned by the Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge of the 189th Judicial
District Court.
04-09-00741-CV
D.M.R.’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which
she asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d
296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (Anders procedures apply to appeals from juvenile delinquency adjudications);
In re A.L.H., 974 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (same). Counsel states
she has provided the juvenile and her guardian copies of the brief and motion to withdraw and
informed them of the juvenile’s right to review the record and file her own brief. See A.L.H., 974
S.W.2d at 360-61; 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, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). No pro se brief
has been filed.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with
counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by D.M.R.’s appellate counsel
and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996,
no pet.).
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
-2-