NUMBER 13-09-537-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN THE MATTER OF O.D.L., A JUVENILE
On appeal from the Juvenile Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela
Appellant O.D.L., a juvenile, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault on June
4, 2007. He was committed to the Texas Youth Commission under a determinate
sentence for a period of seven years. After O.D.L. reached the age of eighteen, the
State sought to transfer him to the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for the completion of his determinate sentence. The trial court held a
hearing, taking into consideration the evidence that was before it at the time, which
included a psychological evaluation and the recommendation of the individuals who had
worked with O.D.L. while he was at the Texas Youth Commission. The trial court
transferred O.D.L. to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional
Division for completion of his seven-year sentence. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
O.D.L. was originally represented by Lawrence Elliott who filed an Anders brief
and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967). Elliott died during the pendency of the appeal. The case was abated, and Luis
Martinez was then appointed as new counsel for O.D.L. Martinez has also informed this
Court that he believes the appeal is frivolous and has likewise filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel.
In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding), applied the
procedures enumerated in Anders to juvenile matters, noting that A[a]lthough juvenile
cases are classified as civil proceedings, they are quasi-criminal in nature.@ Pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), O.D.L.=s first 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.
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) (AIn Texas, an Anders brief
2
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.BCorpus Christi
2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
O.D.L.=s second appointed counsel concurs with the original brief filed that there are no
arguable bases for appeal.
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), O.D.L.=s first-appointed counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling
authority, there are no errors in the trial court=s judgment. Each counsel has informed
this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to
advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel=s motion to withdraw on
O.D.L., and (3) informed O.D.L. of his right to review the record and to file a pro se
response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed,
and O.D.L. has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon 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.
1
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe pro se response need not comply with the
rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court
those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case
presents any meritorious issues.@ In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.BWaco 1997, no pet.)).
3
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel=s brief and have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, O.D.L.=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 Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex.
App.BDallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that A[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 appellant=s
second-appointed counsel=s motion to withdraw.2 Within five days of the date of this
Court=s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to O.D.L.
and to advise him of his right to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. 3
2
We dismiss Lawrence Elliott=s motion to withdraw as moot.
3
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should O.D.L. wish to seek further review of this case,
he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for review or file a pro se petition for review. Within five
days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to
4
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. 2006).
ROSE VELA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
21st day of December, 2010.
appellant and to advise appellant of his right to file a petition for further review. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. '
56.01(a) (Vernon Supp. 2010); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (requiring, in criminal cases, the attorney
representing a defendant on appeal to send the client a copy of the court of appeals' opinion and judgment
within five days); 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. 2006).
5