Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the County Court of Victoria County, Texas.
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
M. BENAVIDES, JUSTICE
child, has filed this appeal of her sentence to confinement
to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (¶JD). V.C.A.
was charged and adjudicated of the offense of assault of a
public servant, a third-degree felony. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a), (b)(1) (West, Westlaw
through 2017 1st C.S.).
pleaded true to the allegation during an adjudication
hearing. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.03 (West,
Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). During her disposition
hearing the following month, the trial court took judicial
notice of the court's file, including a report from a
psychologist. The court also heard testimony from the
complainant, V.C.A.'s probation officers, V.C.A.'s
guardian, V.C.A.'s Court Appointed Special Advocate, and
V.C.A. herself. Following the close of testimony, the trial
court sentenced V.C.A. to commitment in ¶JD for an
indeterminate sentence and made a finding that V.C.A. has
behavioral health or other special needs that cannot be met
with the resources available in the community. See
id. §§ 54.04(d)(2), 54.04013 (West, Westlaw
through 2017 1st C.S.). V.C.A. filed this notice of appeal.
V.C.A.'s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an
Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
to Anders v. California, V.C.A.'s
court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a
motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review
of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an
appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel's
brief meets the requirements of Anders as it
presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
("In Texas, an Anders brief need not
specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if
counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to
the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112
S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.));
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
compliance with High v. State and Kelly v.
State, V.C.A.'s counsel carefully discussed why,
under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in
the trial court's judgment. See High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978);
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-22 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014). V.C.A.'s appellate counsel also notified this
Court that he: (1) notified V.C.A. that he has filed an
Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided
V.C.A. with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed V.C.A. of
her rights to file a pro se response,  review the record
preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary
review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; (4)
provided V.C.A. with a copy of the appellate record; and (5)
informed V.C.A. that the pro se response, if any, should
identify for the Court those issues which she believes the
Court should consider in deciding whether the case presents
any meritorious issues. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. V.C.A. did not file a
pro se response.
receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full
examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the
case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). A court of appeals has two options when an
Anders brief is filed. After reviewing the entire
record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no
reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable
grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for
appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If
the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not
review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed
those issues on appeal. Id.
reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief, and we have
found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See
id. at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it
considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the
record for reversible error but found none, the court of
appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
accordance with Anders, V.C.A.'s attorney has
asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for
appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing
Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("[I]f an attorney believes
the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing
the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed
attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a
brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is
frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant
counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of this
Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of
this opinion and this Court's judgment to V.C.A. and
advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary
review.  See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see
also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35;
Ex Parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App.