COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
|
IN THE MATTER OF J.A.M., |
§
§
§
§
§
§ |
No. 08-08-00238-CV
Appeal from the 65th District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 08,00213) |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a disposition removing the juvenile from his home and placing him in the Challenge Boot Camp Program. We affirm.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which counsel has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S. Ct. 2094, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has not exercised his right to file a pro se brief. Anders procedures apply to appeals from juvenile delinquency adjudications. In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998). Counsel provided J.A.M. with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. J.A.M. did not file a brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A further discussion of the arguable ground advanced in counsel's brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.
We affirm the trial court's judgment, and we GRANT appellate counsel's motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
August 19, 2009
DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice
Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.