|
|
|
|
Opinion filed May 18, 2006
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-06-00109-CV
__________
IN THE MATTER OF H.C.
On Appeal from the 145th District Court
Nacogdoches County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. J01449-2005
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial court entered an order finding that H.C. violated the terms and conditions of her juvenile probation and committing H.C. to the Texas Youth Commission. We affirm.
Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.CEastland 2005, no pet.).[1]
Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit.
The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
May 18, 2006
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., and
McCall, J., and Strange, J.
[1]The Texas Supreme Court has held that Anders procedures apply in juvenile appeals. In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1998).