In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00184-CV
IN THE MATTER OF K.N.M., A CHILD
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1
Randall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 5643-J, Honorable James W. Anderson, Presiding
October 14, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
K.N.M., a juvenile,1 appeals an order of County Court at Law Number One of
Randall County, sitting as a juvenile court, modifying her existing order of probation and
committing her to the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department for an
indeterminate period not exceeding her nineteenth birthday. Her court-appointed
1
We refer to the child by her initials only. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 56.01(j)
(West 2014); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(c).
appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders2 brief. We will
grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the order of the juvenile court.
Background
K.N.M. had initial contact with juvenile authorities in 2011 for truancy and running
away from home. In February 2012, she was adjudicated delinquent and placed under
an order of probation for unauthorized use of a vehicle and evading arrest or detention.
Also during February, she attempted to escape from the county juvenile
detention facility. K.N.M. was briefly on runaway status during March 2012. In April,
she failed to attend court-ordered, in-school detention. An October 2012 random
urinalysis was positive for marijuana.
In November 2012, K.N.M. was placed in a psychiatric treatment facility for a
brief interval after an attempted overdose on synthetic marijuana. The next month the
court modified her order of probation and placed her in a Nebraska children’s home.
K.N.M. ran away from the children’s home in January 2014 and traveled back to
Texas with a truck driver. Later in January, officers found her at the home of a former
boyfriend in Randall County. After she was apprehended, her probation was modified
by adding conditions requiring electronic monitoring and placement in a county-
operated residential facility.
2
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re
D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 299 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (finding Anders procedures
apply to juvenile matters).
2
Some twenty days later, K.N.M. removed the electronic monitor at school and
fled on foot. A probation officer located her, but she refused to stop and ran from the
officer. During the ensuing chase K.N.M. crossed all lanes of traffic on a busy interstate
highway. Officers located her attempting to hide beneath a shed at a farm machinery
store.
The State petitioned to modify the prior disposition. This, it requested, could
include commitment to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. As grounds, the
pleading alleged K.N.M. violated the conditions of her probation by being discharged for
misconduct from the county residential facility and for engaging in delinquent conduct by
damaging her electronic monitor strap.
At the modification hearing, K.N.M. plead true to the grounds alleged but
contested commitment to TJJD. Besides establishing the stated background facts, the
hearing evidence indicated K.N.M. used tobacco, marijuana and synthetic marijuana,
often obtaining the latter substance “from her mother’s stash.” According to a probation
officer’s testimony, K.N.M. was “in detention about twelve to fifteen times for different
offenses.” At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court imposed the noted disposition.
This appeal followed.
Analysis
Through her motion to withdraw and Anders brief, counsel for K.N.M.
demonstrates a diligent review of the record. The brief discusses the procedural
history, facts, and law applicable to the case. Counsel concludes under the controlling
authorities this record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for appeal.
3
Counsel indicates she served K.N.M. with a copy of the motion to withdraw and
Anders brief, and advised K.N.M. of the right to review the record and file a pro se
response.3 Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet.
refused). Counsel further indicates she provided K.N.M. with a copy of the trial court
record. By letter, we notified K.N.M. and her mother of the opportunity to respond to
counsel’s motion to withdraw and Anders brief. Neither filed a response.
In conformity with the standards for review after counsel files an Anders brief, we
will not rule on the motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the record.
Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If this
court determines the appeal arguably has merit, we will remand it to the trial court for
appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991).
We have reviewed the entire record to determine the existence of any arguable
grounds for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300
(1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Finding no arguable
grounds supporting a claim of reversible error, we agree with counsel that the appeal
has no merit.
3
The certificate of service attached to counsel’s Ander’s brief indicates she also
served K.N.M.’s mother with a copy.
4
Conclusion
The motion of counsel to withdraw is granted and the order of the trial court is
affirmed.4 TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
James T. Campbell
Justice
4
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, mail K.N.M.
and her mother a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the right to
file a pro se petition for discretionary review under appellate rule 53. The documents
and notification shall be sent to K.N.M. and her mother at their last known addresses via
certified mail, return receipt requested. Counsel shall also send this court a letter
certifying compliance and attaching a copy of the return receipts within the time for filing
a motion for rehearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 2; cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“opinion sent to
criminal defendant”).
5