COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-150-CV
IN THE MATTER OF K.C.
------------
FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant K.C. was adjudicated delinquent in February 2009 for
unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a state jail felony, 2 and failure to identify
himself to law enforcement, a misdemeanor. 3 According to the record, he was
already on juvenile probation when he committed this additional delinquent
conduct. After adjudicating Appellant delinquent, the trial court again placed
him on probation for a term of one year. In April 2009, the State filed a motion
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
… Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.07 (Vernon 2003).
3
… Id. § 38.02 (Vernon Supp. 2009).
to modify this disposition, contending that Appellant had violated his conditions
of probation. Appellant stipulated that he had violated some of the conditions
of probation. After a hearing, the trial court ordered Appellant committed to the
Texas Youth Commission (TYC). Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel
avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. 4 Counsel’s brief
and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California 5 by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible
grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the
appeal. 6 This court provided Appellant and his mother the opportunity to file
a pro se brief, but they have not done so. The State also did not file a brief.
In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent
evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining
4
… See In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding)
(holding that Anders procedures apply to juvenile appeals).
5
… 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
6
… See Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
1995, no pet.).
2
that the appeal is frivolous. 7 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 8
Our review of the record reveals no jurisdictional defects. The
juvenilecourt has jurisdiction over a child who is alleged to have engaged in
delinquent conduct. 9 Appellant and his trial counsel stipulated that Appellant’s
birthday is October 15, 1992, and that he was sixteen years old at the time of
trial.10 Appellant and his trial counsel also stipulated that Appellant resides in
Tarrant County with his mother.
Our review of the record also shows that the motion to modify disposition
is not defective and provided sufficient notice to Appellant. 11 Service in this
case was also proper. 12
7
… See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
Mays, 904 S.W.2d at 923.
8
… See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351
(1988).
9
… See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.04(a) (Vernon 2008).
10
… See id. § 51.02(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2009) (stating a “child” is a
person who is ten years of age or older but under seventeen years of age).
11
… See id. § 54.05(d) (Vernon 2008) (requiring reasonable notice of
disposition hearing to all parties).
12
… See id. § 53.06(a)(1) (requiring that child be served with summons);
In re D.W.M., 562 S.W.2d 851, 852–53 (Tex. 1978) (requiring that child must
be served with summons and that summons must affirmatively appear in
record).
3
Appellant’s grandmother, with whom he also resides, attended the
proceedings. 13 Appellant was represented by counsel at all stages of the
proceedings, including this appeal.14 Additionally, Appellant’s waivers of his
rights comport with section 51.09 of the family code. 15
Our review of the record reveals no basis for contending that the trial
court abused its discretion in committing Appellant to TYC. 16 Finally, no
evidence in the record shows that Appellant received ineffective assistance of
counsel. 17
Because our independent review of the record reveals no reversible error,
we agree with counsel’s professional determination that any appeal of this case
would be frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: January 28, 2010
13
… See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.115(a) (Vernon 2008).
14
… See id. § 51.10 (Vernon Supp. 2009).
15
… See id. § 51.09 (Vernon 2008).
16
… See id. § 54.05; In re J.P., 136 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Tex. 2004).
17
… See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052,
2064 (1984); D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d at 297.
4
in the Matter of K.C.
Combined Opinion